3:15-cr-00088•USA v. Strickland et al
Texte intégral
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOHNNYLEE PRESTON BURK, Defendant. Case No. 3:15-cr-00088-SLG-3 ORDER REGARDING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY: DOCKETS 298, 301, 304, and 310 This Court has previously issued several orders in this case related to Mr. Burk’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. However, the Court did not address whether it was granting a certificate of appealability in those orders.1 On November 17, 2020, the Ninth Circuit remanded this case for this Court to grant or deny a certificate of appealability. As to the orders at Docket 298 (dismissing second/subsequent § 2255 motion), Docket 301 (denying motion to proceed pro se and dismissing supplemental § 2255 motion), Docket 304 (declining to take action on pro se filings), and Docket 310 (denying reconsideration), the Court finds that Mr. Burk 1 “Upon the filing of a notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of appealability, the district court shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the standard for issuing a certificate, or state its reasons why a certificate should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). If no express request is made for a certificate of appealability, the notice of appeal shall be deemed to constitute a request for a certificate.” United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). Case 3:15-cr-00088-SLG Document 311 Filed 11/18/20 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 3:15-cr-00088-SLG, United States v. Burk Order Re Certificate of Appealability Page 2 of 2 has not made the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and therefore DENIES a certificate of appealability.2 Mr. Burk may request a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Clerk of Court shall forward to the Ninth Circuit the record and a copy of this order. DATED this 18th day of November, 2020, at Anchorage, Alaska. /s/ Sharon L. Gleason UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(d), 2253(c)(2). See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (certificate of appealability may be granted only if applicant made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” i.e., a showing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further” (internal quotations and citations omitted)). Case 3:15-cr-00088-SLG Document 311 Filed 11/18/20 Page 2 of 2
Vous vous demandez comment ce texte s’applique à votre situation ?
Consultation gratuite, sans engagement
Décrivez votre situation. Notre équipe vous recontactera par e-mail pour votre consultation.
Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.