Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-03-03105/USCOURTS-caDC-03-03105-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Michael Angelo Vargas
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Filed July 12, 2005

No. 03-3105

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

APPELLEE

v.

MICHAEL ANGELO VARGAS,

APPELLANT

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(97cr00020-01)

On Petition for Rehearing

______

Before: EDWARDS and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges, and

WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM: In his petition for rehearing, Vargas asks for

an opportunity to submit a brief on the question whether he

needed a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) in order to appeal the district court’s denial of his

motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. We see no reason to doubt our holding that he did

USCA Case #03-3105 Document #905208 Filed: 07/12/2005 Page 1 of 2
2

need a certificate and that he was not entitled to one. After our

decision the Supreme Court decided Gonzalez v. Crosby, No.

04-6432, 2005 WL 1469516 (U.S. June 23, 2005). The Court

observed that requiring a certificate of appealability for Rule

60(b) motions in habeas cases, as many courts of appeals have,

appeared to be “plausible” and to have a sound basis in the

statute. 2005 WL 1469516, at *6 n.7. 

Vargas also maintains that we erred in stating that the

district court did not deny his Rule 60(b) motion on procedural

grounds. The district court stated that Vargas had shown neither

why the court’s original denial of habeas relief was void (Rule

60(b)(4)) nor why the judgment should be set aside (Rule

60(b)(6)). Even if these grounds of decision might be

characterized as “procedural,” we would still deny a certificate

of appealability. Vargas had no underlying constitutional claim

which “jurists of reason” would find “debatable” and he offered

no basis for supposing “that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural

ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see

Gonzalez v. Secretary for Dep’t of Corr., 366 F.3d 1253, 1267

(11th Cir. 2004) (en banc), affirmed on other grounds in

Gonzalez v. Crosby.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

USCA Case #03-3105 Document #905208 Filed: 07/12/2005 Page 2 of 2