Rodriguez-Arango v. Rapelje

Filing 19

ORDER Denying Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ-ARANGO,
Petitioner,

Case Number 12-11973
Honorable David M. Lawson

v.
THOMAS WINN,
Respondent.
__________________________________/
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Petitioner Michael Rodriguez-Arango was convicted by a Ingham County, Michigan jury of
sexually assaulting a twelve year-old boy who had recently emigrated with his family from Cuba.
He was sentenced to a substantial prison term, and presently is confined at the Saginaw Correctional
Facility, Michigan. He filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
raising a variety of claims dealing with the quality of his legal representation, the prosecutor’s
conduct, the questioning of the victim, an amendment to a charge, sentencing, and the trial court’s
jurisdiction.
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts:
The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a
final order adverse to the applicant. . . . If the court issues a certificate, the court must
state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, a party may not appeal the denial but
may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 22.
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing
1

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Courts must either issue a certificate
of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or provide reasons why such
a certificate should not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); In re Certificates of
Appealability, 106 F.3d 1306, 1307 (6th Cir. 1997). To receive a certificate of appealability, “a
petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the
petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate
to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003)
(internal quotes and citations omitted).
The Court concluded that the petitioner had not established that any decision of the state
courts on the claims raised by the petitioner was contrary to or unreasonably applied federal
constitutional law. And the Court now finds that reasonable jurists could not debate its conclusions
as to those claims. The Court therefore will deny a certificate of appealability.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: May 10, 2016
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or
first class U.S. mail on May 10, 2016.
s/Jennifer McCoy
JENNIFER McCOY

2