Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-13-15647/USCOURTS-ca11-13-15647-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-15647

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-00067-CG-C

PATRICK JOSEPPH CHAREST, 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

BILLY MITCHEM, 

 Respondent - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

________________________

(February 13, 2015)

Before HULL, MARTIN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Joseph Charest, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition on jurisdictional grounds and, in the 

USCA11 Case: 13-15647 Date Filed: 02/13/2015 Page: 1 of 2
2

alternative, denying it as an abuse of the writ and untimely. The district court 

granted a certificate of appealability on the following question:

Whether Charest’s current habeas petition was a second or successive 

petition and subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, or whether his 

2005 sentence modification did not constitute a new and intervening 

judgment which, pursuant to Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320,

130 S. Ct. 2788 (2010), would restart the one-year period for filing a 

habeas petition. 

We conclude that this COA was improvidently granted because it fails to indicate 

that jurists of reason would find Charest’s underlying jurisdictional arguments 

debatable, insofar as he needed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). We therefore vacate the COA and remand to 

the district court to consider whether Charest has made a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right, in conformity with Slack. See Spencer v. United

States, No.10-10676, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2014 WL 6234529, at *4 (11th Cir. Nov. 

14, 2014) (en banc) (“Going forward, a certificate of appealability, whether issued 

by this Court or a district court, must specify what constitutional issue jurists of 

reason would find debatable. . . . A failure to specify that issue would violate the 

text enacted by Congress . . . and will result in the vacatur of the certificate.”).

The certificate of appealability is VACATED, and the case is 

REMANDED. 

USCA11 Case: 13-15647 Date Filed: 02/13/2015 Page: 2 of 2