1996 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-14-1996

Santana v. United States

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 96-5276

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1996 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Santana v. United States" (1996). 1996 Decisions. Paper 53.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996/53
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 ________________ 

 

 96-5276 

 _________________ 

 

 ERNESTO SANTANA 

 v. 

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 Ernesto Santana, 

 Appellant. 

 

 

 On Appeal from the United States District Court 

 For the District of New Jersey 

 D.C. Civ. No. 96-cv-00499 

 

 Submitted by the Clerk 

 for a certificate of appealability 

 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) 

 August 15, 1996 

 Before: BECKER, ALITO and MCKEE, Circuit Judges. 

 (Motions Panel A) 

 (Opinion Filed October 18, 1996) 

 Ernesto Santana, # 15992-050 

 Ray Brook FCI 

 P.O. Box 905 

 Ray Brook, N.Y. 12977 

 Appellant Pro Se 

 Kevin McNulty, Esquire 

 U.S. Attorney's Office 

 970 Broad Street 

 Newark, New Jersey 07101 

 Counsel for Appellee 

 
 ORDER AMENDING OPINION 

 

 The opinion in the above case is amended as follows: 

 In the penultimate paragraph of Section III, after the 

parenthetical ("Congress . . . motion.") add a footnote signal, 

and the footnote should read as follows: 

 We note that 18 U.S.C. § 3553 was amended to 

 add a "safety valve" provision that now 

 allows a district court to impose a guideline 

 sentence below the mandatory minimum if the 

 defendant meets certain criteria. The safety 

 valve exception, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), was 

 enacted as part of the Violent Crime Control 

 and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub.L. 103- 

 322, 108 Stat. 1796. This section provides 

 no relief for petitioner, who pled guilty in 

 1992, as it applies only to sentences imposed 

 on or after September 23, 1994 and is not 

 retroactive. United States v. Torres, 1996 

 WL 626446 (10th Cir. Oct. 30, 1996)(citing

 United States v. Rodriguez-Lopez, 63 F.3d 

 892, 893 (9th Cir. 1995) and United States v. 

 Lopez-Pineda, 55 F.3d 693, 697 n.3 (1st 

 Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 259 (1995)). 

 The last paragraph of Section III shall be connected to 

the previous paragraph with an "And" making the "B" in because a 

small character. Then a new paragraph will read as follows: 

 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty 

 Act requires that a certificate of 

 appealability be granted before an appeal of 

 the denial of a § 2255 petition may proceed. 

 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). 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). The Supreme Court in

 Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), 

 stated that under an unamended § 2253 a 

 certificate of probable cause should issue in 

 a § 2254 case only if the applicant had made 

 a "substantial showing of the denial of a 

 federal right." Id. at 893 n.4. It is 

 undecided whether Congress intended to change 

 the standard, along with the name, for 

 granting a certificate of appealability. We 

 note that in another part of the AEDPA 

 regarding granting stays of execution, the

 drafters used "substantial showing of the 

 denial of a federal right." §2262(b)(3). We 

 further note that a writ of habeas corpus can 
 be granted if a person is held in violation 

 of the Constitution (i.e. constitutional 

 rights) or laws of the United States (i.e.

 federal rights). 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254,

 2255. We need not determine whether the 

 language of § 2253(c)(1) resulted from 

 imperfect draftsmanship or from an intent to 

 change the standard for granting a 

 certificate of appealability because 

 Santana's petition raises a constitutional

 claim, that of ineffective assistance of 

 counsel. Since Santana has not made a 

 substantial showing of the denial of a 

 constitutional right, we deny the request for 

 a certificate of appealability. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Edward R. Becker 

 Edward R. Becker 

 Circuit Judge 

Dated: November 14, 1996