Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02565/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02565-3/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)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDALL BYRD FERGUSON,

Petitioner,

 v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 04-2565 SI

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART REQUEST FOR

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal of the judgment entered on January 11, 2007. Pursuant to

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), the Court has reviewed the record in this case and issues a

certificate of appealability on petitioner’s claim that the trial court violated his rights under the Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendments when it denied his request for a continuance to substitute counsel on the day

of sentencing. 

The Court denies petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability on the remaining claims

because petitioner has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). As set forth in the Court’s August 9, 2006 order, petitioner’s equal protection challenge

fails because there is a rational basis for punishing the transportation of an illegal drug more severely

than simple possession. Petitioner’s due process challenge to the word “transport,” as used in California

Health and Safety Code § 11531, is actually an impermissible challenge to the California Supreme

Court’s interpretation of “transport” in People v. Rogers, 5 Cal. 3d 129 (1971). Finally, petitioner’s

claim concerning the need for a “technical” jury instruction on the definition of “transport” is

procedurally barred due to defense counsel’s failure to object to the jury instruction actually given, and

even if this claim was not procedurally barred, it would fail on the merits.

Case 3:04-cv-02565-SI Document 31 Filed 02/09/07 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part petitioner’s request for a certificate

of appealability. (Docket No. 29).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02565-SI Document 31 Filed 02/09/07 Page 2 of 2