Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03924/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03924-2/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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONTE CORMIER,

 Petitioner,

v.

DAVID L. RUNNELS, warden,

 Respondent.

_____________________________________/

No. C 05-3924 MHP

ORDER

Re: Certificate of Appealability

On September 29, 2006, this court issued an order and entered judgment denying the petition

for writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner Donte Cormier. On October 25, 2006, petitioner filed a

notice of appeal of the court’s judgment, and on November 1, 2006 petitioner filed an application for

certificate of appealability. Under 28 U.S.C. section 2253(c), an appeal may not be taken from a

district court order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus unless the district court or the court

of appeals issues a certificate of appealablity. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). A petitioner seeking a

certificate of appealablity under that section must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right,” id. § 2253(c)(2), which can be made by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists

would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Tennard

v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

Having reviewed petitioner’s claims, the court concludes that he has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right with respect to each of the claims in his petition. The

court therefore ORDERS that a certificate of appealability issue as to (1) whether the trial court’s

evidentiary rulings violated petitioner’s Due Process rights; (2) whether petitioner received

Case 3:05-cv-03924-MHP Document 22 Filed 01/11/07 Page 1 of 3
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

ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment; (3) whether the prosecutor’s

conduct during trial violated petitioner’s Due Process rights; and (4) whether the cumulative effect

of multiple errors produced a denial of petitioner’s Due Process rights.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _______________________________

MARILYN HALL PATEL

District Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:05-cv-03924-MHP Document 22 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

ENDNOTES

Case 3:05-cv-03924-MHP Document 22 Filed 01/11/07 Page 3 of 3