### 1996 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d
S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

11-14-1996 

# S a n t a n a v . U nit ed S t a t es

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ock e t 96-5276

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1996

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a
U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1996 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a
U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. 

### R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" S a n t a n a v . U nit e d S t a t e s " (1996). 1996 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 53. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1996/53UNITED 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 J udges. (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 S e

Kevin McNulty, Esquire U.S. Attorney's Office
970 Broad Stree t Newark, New Jer sey 07101

Counsel for App elleeORDER AMENDING OPINION

The opinion in the above case is amended a s follows:

In the penultimate paragraph of Section II I, after the parenthetical ("Congress . . . motion.") add a foot note 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 guidel ine sentence below the mandatory minimum if th e defendant meets certain criteria. The saf ety valve exception, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), was enacted as part of the Violent Crime Contr ol and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub.L. 10 3- 322, 108 Stat. 1796. This section provide s no relief for petitioner, who pled guilty in 1992, as it applies only to sentences impo sed on or after September 23, 1994 and is not retroactive. United States v. Torres, 199 6 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 Pena lty Act requires that a certificate of appealability be granted before an appeal of the denial of a § 2255 petition may procee d. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). A certificate of appealability may issue only if "the applicant has made a substantial showing o f 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 ma de a "substantial showing of the denial of a federal right." Id. at 893 n.4. It is undecided whether Congress intended to cha nge 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 canbe granted if a person is held in violatio n

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. B ecker
Edward R. Becke r Circuit Judge Dated: November 14, 1996