Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04269/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04269-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT HOREL,

Respondent.

NO. C07-4269 TEH

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Gregory Williams’s request for a certificate of appealability is GRANTED

IN PART and DENIED IN PART. A certificate of appealability may issue where the

petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). A petitioner satisfies this standard where he or she shows that reasonable

jurists could find the issues debatable or that the issues are “adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000)

(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)).

The Court finds this standard to have been satisfied as to Petitioner’s first and second

claims regarding, respectively, a claim under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and a

claim involving the voluntariness of Petitioner’s statements to police. The Court therefore

GRANTS a certificate of appealability as to these two claims.

As to Petitioner’s remaining claims, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability

because Petitioner has not satisfied the governing standard. This Court does not find that

reasonable jurists could find the issues relating to Petitioner’s third through fifth claims to be

debatable, nor are the arguments raised adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further. Accordingly, the Clerk shall forward the case file to the court of appeals with this

order. Ninth Cir. R. 22-1(b). Petitioner is reminded that “the court of appeals will not

consider uncertified issues unless petitioner first seeks, and the court of appeals grants,

Case 3:07-cv-04269-TEH Document 12 Filed 03/19/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

broader certification. Petitioners desiring broader certification must file, in the court of

appeals, a separate motion for broader certification, along with a statement of reasons why a

certificate should be granted as to any issues(s) within thirty-five days of the district court’s

entry of its order denying a certificate of appealability.” Ninth Cir. R. 22-1(d).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 03/19/08 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:07-cv-04269-TEH Document 12 Filed 03/19/08 Page 2 of 2