Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00569/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00569-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antonio Guiterrez-Valencia
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO GUITERREZ-VALENCIA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

CV F 06-0569 AWI

(CR F 02-5390 AWI)

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S

APPLICATION FOR

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY AND

GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IFP

Doc. #’s 329 and 330

On September 24, 2007, the Court entered an order denying Antonio GuiterrezValencia’s (“Petitioner's”) application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2255

that challenged Petitioner’s conviction on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. On

November 13, 2007, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal of the district court's order. A request for

certificate of appealability was filed on the same date.

The controlling statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2253, provides as follows:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district

judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the

circuit in which the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity

of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person

charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such

person's detention pending removal proceedings.

Case 1:06-cv-00569-AWI Document 6 Filed 11/26/07 Page 1 of 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

26

27

28 2

(c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may

not be taken to the court of appeals from–

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention

complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue

or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

The Supreme Court has found that the Court should issue a certificate of appealability

when the petitioner shows that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 120

S.Ct. 1595, 1603 (2000). The requirement that the petitioner seek a certificate of appealability is

a gatekeeping mechanism that protects the Court of Appeals from having to devote resources to

frivolous issues while at the same time affording petitioners an opportunity to persuade the Court

that through full briefing and argument the potential merit of claims may appear. Lambright v.

Stewart, Nos. 96-99020, 96-99025, 96-99026, 2000 WL 1118937 (9th Cir. Aug. 4, 2000). The

Supreme Court has found that the even the application of an apparently controlling Ninth Circuit

rule can be debatable if it conflicts with the rules of another circuit or there is reasonable

argument of why the Ninth Circuit should reconsider the Ninth circuit rule. See id.

In the present case, Petitioner moved to vacate his sentence pursuant to 42 U.S.C., section

2255 based on the allegation Petitioner suffered ineffective assistance of counsel because

Petitioner was not adequately informed to his right to a jury determination of the number of

marijuana plants involved in his case. The court denied Petitioner’s application for writ of

habeas corpus because Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was not adequately informed and

because Petitioner failed to provide any evidence of a plausible reason to belief that Petitioner

would have foregone the benefits of the negotiated plea agreement in order to have a jury

Case 1:06-cv-00569-AWI Document 6 Filed 11/26/07 Page 2 of 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

26

27

28 3

determination of the number of marijuana plants if he had been specifically informed of that

right.

The court finds that petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Reasonable

jurists would not debate that petitioner has not shown how he is entitled to federal habeas corpus

relief. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that petitioner’s request for a certificate of

appealability is DENIED.

The court notes that Petitioner has also moved to proceed in forma pauperis, and has

attached an affidavit in support thereof. Good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS

Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis to the extent further appellate review may be

made available to Petitioner by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00569-AWI Document 6 Filed 11/26/07 Page 3 of 3