Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-01333/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-01333-3/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)

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONEY R. NUNES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-98-1333 DFL KJM P

vs.

ANA RAMIREZ-PALMER, 

Respondent . ORDER

 /

Petitioner has timely filed a notice of appeal of this court's February 10, 2006 

denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus and requested a certificate of appealability

from this court under 28 U.S.C. § 2253.

The court only issues a certificate of appealability “if the applicant has made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The

certificate of appealability must “indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy” the requirement. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can

demonstrate is “‘debatable among jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different 

/////

Case 2:98-cv-01333-DFL -KJM Document 112 Filed 06/13/06 Page 1 of 2
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

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the standard 1

for issuance of a certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that applied to issuance of

a certificate of probable cause. Jennings, at 1010.

2

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford,

290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

1

Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in

the following claims presented in the instant petition: (1) whether the sentence violated the

Eighth Amendment (claim 1); (2) whether the prosecutor engaged in prosecutorial

vindictiveness (claim 2); and (3) whether People v. Sumstine, 36 Cal.3d 909 (1984), creates a

protected liberty interest that was violated in post-conviction proceedings (claim 4). However,

petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right for the

claim of failure to re-instruct the jury on the definition of reasonable doubt during the

enhancement phase of the trial. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is

issued in the present action for the three claims identified above.

DATED: 6/13/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:98-cv-01333-DFL -KJM Document 112 Filed 06/13/06 Page 2 of 2