United States District Court, D. Nebraska
March 3, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
JUAN CASTREJON, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LAURIE SMITH CAMP, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Defendant's notice that he is appealing the district court decision denying his 28 USC § 2255 motion to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and that he is seeking a Certificate of Appealability (Filing No. 84). The Defendant appeals from this Court's Memorandum and Order and Judgment (Filing Nos. 82 and 83) denying his Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody ("§ 2255 motion"). The Defendant also filed an Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit (Filing No. 85).
Before the Defendant may appeal the denial of his § 2255 motion, a "Certificate of Appealability" must issue. Pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 ("AEDPA"), the right to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion is governed by the certificate of appealability requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right:
(c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from-
(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.
(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
A "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" requires a demonstration "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."'" Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)).
The issues raised in the § 2255 motion were carefully considered. For the reasons set forth in the Court's previously issued Memorandum and Order (Filing No. 82) denying the Defendant's § 2255 motion, the Court concludes that the Defendant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Defendant's request for a certificate of appealability is denied;
2. The Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit (Filing No. 85) is denied; and
3. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the Defendant at his last known address.