Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01240/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01240-2/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)

---

1

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID ARTHUR DEPONTE, ) 

 Petitioner, ) CASE NO. CIV S-07-1240 BJR 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

 ) CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

T. FELKER, Warden, et al. ) 

 Respondent. ) 

____________________________________________________________

 This matter comes before the court on Petitioner’s Request for a Certificate of 

Appealability. (Dkt. No. 24.) The court hereby DENIES the request, for the reasons described 

below.

 Petitioner is a California state prisoner who was convicted by a jury of assault with a 

semiautomatic firearm and of being a convicted felon in possession of and carrying a concealed 

and loaded firearm. Petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 in which he argued that his conviction was not supported by substantial evidence 

and was the result of instructional errors. (Dkt. No. 1.) This court denied the habeas petition on 

September 17, 2009, and Petitioner timely filed a notice of appeal. (Dkt. Nos. 23 and 24.) Before 

Petitioner can appeal this decision, a certification of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c); Fed. R. APP. P. 22(b). 

GERALD V. COLLINS,

A. HEDGPETH, Warden,

Case 2:07-cv-01240-BJR Document 26 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 3
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

 A certificate of appealability is required to appeal “the final order in a habeas proceeding 

in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court.” See Wilson v. 

Bellequ, 554 F.3d 816, 824 (9th Cir. 2009). A district court may issue a certificate “only if the 

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

2253(c)(2). See also Belleque, 554 F.3d at 825–26. The certificate-of-appealability requirement 

“constitutes a gatekeeping mechanism that prevents [federal courts] from devoting judicial 

resources on frivolous issues while at the same time affording habeas petitioners an opportunity 

to persuade [courts] through briefing and argument of the potential merit of issues that may 

appear, at first glance, to lack merit.” Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000).

 “Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing 

required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable 

jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or 

wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating 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.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003) (citing Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

 Petitioner alleged in his habeas petition that his conviction for assault with a firearm was 

not supported by substantial evidence, that the trial court committed reversible errors, and he was 

denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to request a defense of 

accident jury instruction. Petitioner raised the same claims on direct appeal and the Court of 

Appeal of the State of California, Third District, adjudicated the claims on the merits and 

affirmed his judgment and sentence. On review, this court determined that the Appellate Court’s 

Case 2:07-cv-01240-BJR Document 26 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Barbara Jacobs Rothstein 

U.S. District Court Judge 

decision was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established 

federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, nor was the decision based on an unreasonably 

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented at trial. (Dkt. No. 23.)

 In the present motion, Petitioner has not made a substantial showing that he was denied a 

constitutional right, and therefore, is entitled to a certificate of appealability. Indeed, he does not 

even argue that jurists of reason could disagree with this court’s resolution of his constitutional 

claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement 

to proceed further. Instead, he simply restates the claims he raised in the habeas petition. 

Accordingly, he has failed to meet his burden under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. 

 DATED this 2nd day of August, 2010. 

 /s/ Barbara Jacobs Rothstein

Case 2:07-cv-01240-BJR Document 26 Filed 08/03/10 Page 3 of 3