Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
                                                                                      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,   )
                                                                                                                  )
                                                                                      Plaintiff-Respondent.       )   Case No.               4:10-CV-371-BLW
                                                                                                                  )                          1:08-CR-220-BLW
v.                                                                                                                )
                                                                                                                  )   ORDER RE CERTIFICATE
                                                                                      JORGE MANUEL ARGUELLES-     )   OF APPEALABILITY
BRISENO,                                                                                                          )
)
Defendant-Movant.                                                                     )
)
The Court previously denied Jorge Manuel Arguelles-Briseno’s Motion
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.   See Order, Dkt. 36.  Arguelles-Briseno then filed a
Motion for Certificate of Appealability and a Notice of Appeal.  See Dkts. 38, 39.
Having considered the motion and the record in this case, the Court will deny the
motion for a certificate of appealability.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
A.    Standard of Law
A § 2255 movant cannot appeal from the denial or dismissal of his § 2255
motion unless he has first obtained a certificate of appealability.   28 U.S.C.
Order re: Certificate of Appealability - 1




§ 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).  A certificate of appealability will issue only
when a movant has made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.”                                                                                 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).  To satisfy this standard when the court has
dismissed a § 2255 motion (or claims within a § 2255 motion) on procedural
grounds, the movant must show that reasonable jurists would find debatable (1)
whether the court was correct in its procedural ruling, and (2) whether the motion
states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.  Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000).    When the court has denied a § 2255 motion or claims
within the motion on the merits, the movant must show that reasonable jurists
would find the court's decision on the merits to be debatable or wrong.  Id.; Allen
v. Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006).
After carefully considering the record and the relevant case law, the Court
finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determinations regarding
Arguelles-Briseno’s claims to be debatable or wrong.  Accordingly, the Court will
deny the motion for a certificate of appealability shall be denied as to all issues.
ORDER
The Motion for Certificate of Appealability (Dkt. 38) is DENIED.
Arguelles-Briseno is advised that he may still request a certificate of appealability
from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
Order re: Certificate of Appealability - 2




Procedure 22(b) and Local Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall forward a copy of
this Order to the Ninth Circuit.   The district court’s file in this case is available for review
online at www.id.uscourts.gov.
DATED:   January 16, 2013
Honorable B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U. S. District Judge
Order re: Certificate of Appealability - 3

Download 41.pdf

Idaho Law