concerning this court’s prior ruling such as that we misconstrued facts and that we
erred when we determined that an evidentiary hearing was not warranted. However,
those arguments to not seek to challenge the rulings of the state proceedings and are
thus inappropriate for consideration in an application for a certificate of
appealability. Regardless, we have reviewed our prior ruling in these regards and

find them to be proper and just.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, we deny the application for certificate of

appealability.

Samuel Der-Yeghiayan? VU ®

United States District Court Judge

Dated: June 30, 2004


were not properly presented to the state courts during the criminal proceedings and
thus his argument is procedurally defaulted. Page v. Frank, 343 F.3d 901, 905 (7"
Cir. 2003); Howard v. O'Sullivan, 185 F.3d 721, 725 (7 Cir. 1999); Milone v.
Camp, 22 F.3d 693, 702 (7th Cir. 1994). Zamora has not shown that his trial
counsel’s representation was ineffective in any way. Strickland v. Washington, 466
US. 668, 687-88 (1984). In regards to Zamora’s argument regarding the
appropriateness of the search warrant, Zamora failed to properly present the matter
to the state appellate court for review. Zamora also argued that the police testifying
against him committed perjury. However, there is no indication that the police
committed perjury or that even if they did so that the prosecutor knew of the alleged
perjury or that the perjury affected the outcome of the trial. Zamora’s direct appeal
was completely without merit and his appellate counsel appropriately withdrew.
Anders vy, California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). There is no indication that the state
courts acted inappropriately in regards to Zamora’s post-conviction petition. For
these reasons and for all of the reasons detailed in our prior ruing in this action, we
find that Zamora has not even approached his burden of substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right. A reasonable jurist could only conclude after
reviewing the record that, in regards to Zamora’s federal constitutional rights,
Zamora was treated justly, that his constitutional rights were not violated, and that
there is no reason for these proceedings to proceed any further.

We note that Zamora also makes a few arguments in his application


Minute Order Form (06197)

United States District Court, Northern District of Minois

Name of Assigned Judge i Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 3093 DATE 6/30/2004
CASE Zamora vs. Leibach
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g. plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
() a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) o Brief in support of motion due
(3) oO Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due
(4) a Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(7) o Trial{set for/re-set for] on at
(8) im} {Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}
OOFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 COFRCP41(a)(1) OFRCP41(a)(2).
ao @f [Other docket entry] For the reasons stated in the attached memorandum opinion, the petitioner’s
application for certificate of appealability [23-1] is denied. Enter Memorandum Opinion.
gy a [For further detail see order (on reverse side offattached to) the original minute order.)

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.
jotices req number of notices

JUN 3 0 2004

late docketed

date ay

mailing deputy initials

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

ov | Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

Lund 8 Me

Ag

courtroom
Mw depuly’s
initials

LI Ha Of HAP AOU

Datertite tecci
centl Bek



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. ) RORETE!
OMAR ZAMORA, ) ROCKETED
) JUN 3 Q 2004
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) No. 02 C 3093
)
BLAIR LEIBACH, Warden, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION

SAMUEL DER-YEGHIAYAN, District Judge

This matter is before the court on Petitioner Omar Zamora’s (“Zamora”)
application for certificate of appealability. For the reasons stated below deny the

application.

BACKGROUND
Following a bench trial in Illinois state court Zamora was convicted of
possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and was sentenced to
twelve years in prison. The state appellate court affirmed the conviction and the
Illinois Supreme Court denied Zamora leave to appeal further. Zamora filed a post-

conviction petition which was denied. The ruling was affirmed and the Illinois

1


Supreme Court denied Zamora leave to appeal further. Zamora then filed a petition
for writ of habeas corpus in this court. On May 10, 2004, we denied Zamora’s
petition for writ of habeas corpus. Zamora has now filed an application for

certificate of appealability.

LEGAL STADARD

If a court denies a petition for writ of habeas and the petitioner wishes to
appeal, challenging the decisions made by the state trial courts, the petitioner must
seek a certificate of appealability from the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c);
Montgomery v. Davis, 362 F.3d 956, 957 (7* Cir. 2004). A district court should
only issue a certificate of appealability “if the applicant has made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The
petitioner must also show that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that
matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or
that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.'" Slack v. McDonnell, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)(quoting Barefoot v.
Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

DISCUSSION
Zamora has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. His argument conceming the admission of the letters at trial