Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

EDGAR ARNOLD GARCIA,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:92-cr-01027-MP-AK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Respondent.

________________________________/

O R D E R

Petitioner has filed a motion for a Certificate of Appealability in this case, Doc. 117. The

Court therefore has two issues before it: whether Petitioner should be granted a Certificate of

Appealability ("COA"), and if so, which issue(s) should be certified for appeal. Having

considered the facts of this case and the applicable law, the Court finds that Petitioner's request

should be DENIED.

The COA requirement is a result of amendments made to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 by the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110

Stat. 1214. All appeals of habeas petitions which are filed after April 24, 1996, the effective date

of the AEDPA, require that a habeas petitioner first receive a COA before a circuit court can

hear the petitioner's appeal. See Hunter v. United States, 101 F.3d 1565, 1573 (11th Cir. 1996)

(en banc), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 1695, 137 L.Ed.2d 822 (1997). Pursuant to the statute, "[a]

certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (emphasis added). Section

2253(c)(3) requires the district court to indicate which specific issues, if any, a habeas petitioner

is entitled to raise.

Case 1:92-cr-01027-MP-AK Document 120 Filed 08/16/06 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No: 1:92-cr-01027-MP-AK

In order to make the requisite "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right"

[28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)], "a petitioner who has been denied relief in a district court 'must

demonstrate that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the

issues [in a different manner]; or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to

proceed further.'" Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430, 432, 111 S.Ct. 860, 862, 112 L.Ed.2d 956

(1991) (emphasis and brackets in original) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893, n.4,

103 S.Ct. 3383, 3394, n.4, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983)) If a petitioner fails to make such a showing,

his or her request for a COA must be denied. See, e.g., United States v. Riddick, 104 F.3d 1239,

1241 (10th Cir. 1997); Hohn v. United States, 99 F.3d 892, 893 (8th Cir. 1996), petition for cert.

filed (May 12, 1997) (No. 96-8986).

Petitioner raises the Court’s analysis of the voluntariness of his guilty plea and the

ineffectiveness of his counsel as issues debatable among reasonable jurists. Because Petitioner

pled guilty under oath in open court following an extensive colloquy informing him of his rights

and questioning him as the to factual basis and voluntariness of the plea, Petitioner’s challenge to

the voluntariness of his plea is not debatable. As the Court stated in its order adopting the

Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation: 

The Magistrate’s Report correctly applies the law with regard to declarations

made at plea hearings, under oath and in open court. As recounted in the Magistrate’s

Report, Defendant responded in the negative to all questions regarding coercion,

inducement, threats or other pressures to plead guilty. Therefore, the court agrees with

the Magistrate’s conclusion that Defendant’s plea was voluntary.

Doc. 107 at 2. Because Petitioner claims that counsel was ineffective by forcing him

involuntarily to plead guilty, Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is likewise not

debatable. “Defendant relies upon his claim that the plea was involuntary and unknowingly

Case 1:92-cr-01027-MP-AK Document 120 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No: 1:92-cr-01027-MP-AK

entered into; this claim is without merit and, therefore, cannot be the basis for an ineffective

assistance of counsel claim.” Doc. 107 at 3. Accordingly, no reasonable jurists would debate

the fact that petitioner's habeas corpus petition was properly dismissed. Therefore, Petitioner

cannot make a substantial showing of the violation of a constitutional right and the Application

for Certificate of Appealability is denied. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Petitioner's Motion for a Certificate of Appealability (Doc. 117) is DENIED.

2. The clerk is directed to forward a copy of this order and an updated docket sheet

to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of August, 2006

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:92-cr-01027-MP-AK Document 120 Filed 08/16/06 Page 3 of 3