Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-01614/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-01614-1/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 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Aage Nost, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Lyle Broadhead, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-01614-TUC-JGZ

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United 

States Magistrate Jacqueline Rateau that recommends denying Petitioner’s Amended 

Habeas Petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. (Doc. 36.) As thoroughly explained 

by Magistrate Judge Rateau, Petitioner’s petition is untimely. As Petitioner’s objections 

(Doc. 37) do not undermine the analysis and proper conclusion reached by Magistrate 

Judge Rateau, Petitioner’s objections are rejected and the Report and Recommendation is 

adopted. 

 Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability 

must issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1) (the applicant cannot take an appeal unless a 

circuit justice or a circuit or district judge issues a certificate of appealability under 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)). Additionally, 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate may 

issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right. In the certificate, the court must indicate which specific issues satisfy this showing. 

See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(3). A substantial showing is made when the resolution of an 

Case 4:13-cv-01614-JGZ Document 38 Filed 09/16/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

27 

28 

issue of appeal is debatable among reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve the issues 

differently, or if the issue deserves further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484-85 (2000). Upon review of the record in light of the standards for granting a 

certificate of appealability, the Court concludes that a certificate shall not issue as the 

resolution of the petition is not debatable among reasonable jurists and does not deserve 

further proceedings. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 36) is accepted and adopted; 

2. Petitioner’s Amended §2254 Petition (Doc. 10) is denied and this case is 

dismissed with prejudice; 

3. A Certificate of Appealability is denied and shall not issue; and 

4. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this 

matter. 

 Dated this 16th day of September, 2015. 

Case 4:13-cv-01614-JGZ Document 38 Filed 09/16/15 Page 2 of 2