Roberts v. USA

Filing 6

ORDER as to Jonathan Roberts : The court denies a certificate of appealability with respect to the appeal (ECF No. 579 filed in case 3:05-cr-00098 ) of the court's order dated June 2, 2016. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 6/20/2017. ( USCA case 17-16246. ) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF and sent to the defendant manually - DRM) Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 6/20/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12
13
14
15
16
17

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOHNATHON ROBERTS,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_________________________________ )

3:05-cr-00098-HDM
3:16-cv-00255-HDM

ORDER

18
On June 2, 2017, the court struck the defendant’s pro se
19
motion to dismiss.

(ECF No. 577).

On June 15, 2017, defendant

20
filed a notice of appeal.

(ECF No. 579).

Although defendant does

21
not identify what order of the court he appeals, the court presumes
22
he is appealing its order of June 2, 2017.

The court will deny

23
defendant a certificate of appealability for an appeal of that
24
order.
25
The standard for issuance of a certificate of appealability
26
calls for a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
27
right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

The Supreme Court has interpreted 28

28
1

1

U.S.C. § 2253(c) as follows: “Where a district court has rejected

2

the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to

3

satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The defendant must

4

demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s

5

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack

6

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also James v. Giles, 221

7

F.3d 1074, 1077-79 (9th Cir. 2000).

8

illuminated the standard for issuance of a certificate of

9

appealability in Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003).

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

The Supreme Court further

The

Court stated in that case:
We do not require petitioner to prove, before the
issuance of a COA, that some jurists would grant the
petition for habeas corpus. Indeed, a claim can be
debatable even though every jurist of reason might
agree, after the COA has been granted and the case
has received full consideration, that petitioner
will not prevail. As we stated in Slack, “[w]here a
district court has rejected the constitutional
claims on the merits, the showing required to
satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner
must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find
the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”

18
Miller-El, 123 S.Ct. at 1040 (quoting Slack, 529 U.S. at 484).
19
The court has considered the issues raised by defendant, with
20
respect to whether they satisfy the standard for issuance of a
21
certificate of appeal, and determines that none meet that standard.
22
The court therefore denies a certificate of appealability with
23
respect to the appeal of the court’s order dated June 2, 2016.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
DATED: This 20th day of June, 2017.
26
27
28

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2