Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-99-03063/USCOURTS-caDC-99-03063-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Winston Delano Weaver
Appellant

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Decided November 9, 1999

No. 99-3063

United States of America,

Appellee

v.

Winston Delano Weaver,

Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 92cr00038)

---------

ON A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT

---------

Wilma Antoinette Lewis, U.S. Attorney, John Robert Fisher, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Mary-Patrice Brown, Assistant U.S. Attorney, entered appearances for appellee United

States of America.

Winston Delano Weaver, pro se.

USCA Case #99-3063 Document #475783 Filed: 11/09/1999 Page 1 of 3
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: Wald, Ginsburg, and Garland, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Ginsburg.

Ginsburg, Circuit Judge: Winston Weaver appeals the

denial of his habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. s 2255. Because appellate review is limited to the

issues specified in the certificate of appealability, and the

district court did not specify the issue(s) with respect to

which Weaver made a substantial showing that he was denied

a constitutional right, we remand the record for supplementation.

I. Background

In 1992 Winston Weaver was convicted of conspiracy to

distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine and cocaine base,

two counts of attempted distribution of cocaine and cocaine

base within 1,000 feet of a school, and unlawful use of a

communication facility. Weaver's conviction and 120-month

sentence were affirmed by this court on direct appeal. United States v. Weaver, 55 F.3d 685 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (table). In

1997 Weaver filed a motion to vacate his conviction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. s 2255, based upon ineffective assistance of

counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. He claimed his trial

counsel was ineffective for failing to cross-examine witnesses

properly, to locate a defense witness, and to obtain impeachment evidence against witnesses, and that the prosecutor

engaged in misconduct.

In April 1999, after briefing but without argument, the

district court denied Weaver's s 2255 motion. Weaver then

filed with the district court an application for a certificate of

appealability (COA), asserting that the court improperly

failed to resolve certain issues and to provide him with an

evidentiary hearing, which he deemed particularly important

because he was trying to establish (1) when defense counsel

and the Government learned that one of the Government's

witnesses had testified falsely; and (2) that counsel had made

no attempt to locate a defense witness. The district court

granted the COA.

USCA Case #99-3063 Document #475783 Filed: 11/09/1999 Page 2 of 3
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

II. Discussion

The district court is to issue a COA only if the applicant

has made "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." See 28 U.S.C. s 2253(c)(2). The COA must

"indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy" that standard,

28 U.S.C. s 2253(c)(3)--unless perhaps the petitioner has

presented only one issue to the district court. See Else v.

Johnson, 104 F.3d 82, 83 (5th Cir. 1997). Appellate review is

limited to the issue(s) specified in the COA. See, e.g., Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 1998).

In this case the district court did not, as required by 28

U.S.C. s 2253(c)(3), specify the issue or issues as to which

Weaver made a substantial showing he was denied a constitutional right. Because Weaver's application for a COA raises

several claims, it is impossible to glean from the present

record which issue(s) the district court thought worthy of

appeal. Cf. Murray, 145 F.3d at 1250-51 (determining that

while court of appeals could not decide issue not specified in

COA, it could "construe the issue specification in light of the

pleadings and other parts of the record"). Therefore we

must remand the record for the district court to specify the

issue or issues for appeal. See Muniz v. Johnson, 114 F.3d

43, 46 (5th Cir. 1997); Lyons v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 105

F.3d 1063, 1076 (6th Cir. 1997); Hunter v. United States, 101

F.3d 1565, 1584 (11th Cir. 1996); but cf. Tiedeman v. Benson,

122 F.3d 518, 522 (8th Cir. 1997) (holding remand for specification of issues unnecessary where clear from briefing appellant had not made substantial showing he was denied any

constitutional right).

It is so ordered.

USCA Case #99-3063 Document #475783 Filed: 11/09/1999 Page 3 of 3