credibility was correct. See § 2254(d); Armstrong v. Young, 34 F.3d 421, 426-27 (7th
Cir. 1994). We are unconvinced that this issue is debatable among jurists of reason,
that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner, or that the question is

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Barefoot v. Estelle, 463

USS. 880, 893 n.4, 103 S. Ct. 3383 (1983). Accordingly, we find that McGee has failed
to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. His motion for
a certificate of appealability under § 2253(c) is therefore denied.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the motion for a certificate of appealability is denied.

Re Bow P. Cocetens

Charles P. Kocoras
United States District Judge

Dated: June 8, 2001



Mimute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Charles P. Kocoras

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 00 C 8158 DATE 6/8/2001
CASE US ex rel. Claude McGee vs. Thomas F. Page
TITLE
{in the fotlowing 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:
qd) ia} Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.}
(2) a Brief in support of motion due_____.
@) a 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 setfor at
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor sats
(7) Qa Trial{set for/re-set for]on___—_aat.
(8) o {Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
CUFRCP4(m) (CiGeneralRule21 OFRCP41(a)(1) CFRCP41(a)(2).
(lo) «xf {Other docket entry) ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION: The request for a certificate of
appealability is denied.

dl) ff {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.
4 umber of notices

Notices mailed by judge's staff,

UN £ 1 2007

Notified counsel by telephone, date docketed

YS | Docketing to mai notices.

Mall AO 45¢ oem ‘\ dockbritf ddputy initials
Copy to ing aie judge. ape -
courtroom Ot JUN -8 PH 2: 04 date mailed notice
SCT deputy’s v
initials

Date/time received in

central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials



DOCKETED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN 11 2001
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES ex rel. CLAUDE McGEE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. 00 C 8158

)
THOMAS F. PAGE, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHARLES P. KOCORAS, District Judge:

This matter is before the Court on Claude McGee’s motion for a certificate of
appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). For the reasons set forth below,
the motion is denied.

DISCUSSION

Claude McGee, a prisoner of the Illinois Department of Corrections, moves the
Court to issue a certificate of appealability from our denial of his petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1), no appeal may be taken from the
final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises
out of process issued by a State court unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. A certificate of appealability under this section may issue only if the


applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28
USS.C. § 2253(c)(2).

McGee has not made such a showing in this case. McGee argued on habeas that
the trial court should have suppressed evidence of statements he allegedly made under
custodial interrogation. At the hearing on his motion to suppress, McGee testified that
police officers ignored his repeated requests for an attorney and continued to
interrogate him in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The police
officers testified that McGee had made the incriminating statements voluntarily and
had not requested an attorney. The sole question raised by McGee’s habeas petition
was whether the trial court should have drawn an adverse inference from the
prosecution’s failure to call a third witness, Attorney General Thomas Rieck, to refute
McGee’s testimony about the circumstances surrounding the alleged custodial
confession.

We found no constitutional error in the state trial and appellate courts’ refusal
to attribute significance to the state’s failure to call Rieck. McGee cited no clearly
established federal law requiring the adverse inference he suggested. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1). The two cases on which he did rely were clearly inapposite, as discussed
in our April 25, 2001, Memorandum Opinion denying the petition. The Court was

therefore left with the presumption that the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’

-2-