USA v. Noble

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER KOFI NOBLE,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:18-cr-00099-TMB-1
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY FROM DENIAL OF
28 U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION
[DKT. 91]
Before the Court is Defendant Christopher Kofi Noble’s request for a certificate of
appealability from the Court’s denial of Noble’s motion to vacate, correct, or set aside his sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“the Motion”).1 Noble seeks to appeal the point of “whether counsel
was deficient under the Sixth Amendment for failing to inform Mr. Noble that under Garza v.
Idaho he could direct counsel to file a notice of appeal from his sentence and conviction.”2
By statute, prisoners cannot appeal final orders from their § 2255 proceedings “[u]nless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.”3 A judge may issue a certificate “only
if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”4 Courts
must limit their examination to a “threshold inquiry” and consider only whether the District
1 Dkt. 91 (Motion).
2 Id. at 1.
3 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). See also Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1) (“[I]n a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding,
the applicant cannot take an appeal unless a circuit justice or a circuit or district judge issues a
certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).”).
4 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Case 3:18-cr-00099-TMB Document 94 Filed 11/04/21 Page 1 of 3

2
Court’s decision was “debatable.”5 “[T]he only question is whether the applicant has shown that
‘jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or
that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.’”6
In this case, the Court’s decision left no room for debate. Binding Supreme Court precedent
holds that when a defendant did not clearly convey their wishes about appealing, counsel’s failure
to consult them about appealing constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel only if “there is reason
to think (1) that a rational defendant would want to appeal . . . or (2) that this particular defendant
reasonably demonstrated to counsel that he was interested in appealing.”7
At the time of his sentencing, Noble never gave counsel any express direction regarding an
appeal, nor did he reasonably demonstrate any interest in appealing. Nor was Noble’s situation
one in which a rational defendant would want to appeal. Therefore, the Court concluded that there
was no evidence counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient under applicable Supreme
Court caselaw.8 In the Court’s view, no “jurists of reason” could disagree with its resolution of
Noble’s constitutional claims.9
//
//
5 Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 774 (2017) (quoting Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 348
(2003)).
6 Id. at 773 (quoting Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327).
7 Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 480 (2000).
8 Dkt. 90 at 12–14 (Order on § 2255 Motion).
9 Buck, 137 S. Ct. at 773.
Case 3:18-cr-00099-TMB Document 94 Filed 11/04/21 Page 2 of 3

3
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Noble’s Motion for a certificate of
appealability is without merit. Accordingly, Noble’s Motion at Docket 91 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Anchorage, Alaska, this 4th day of November, 2021.
/s/ Timothy M. Burgess
TIMOTHY M. BURGESS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:18-cr-00099-TMB Document 94 Filed 11/04/21 Page 3 of 3