UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MOSES KEON WILLIAMS,

Petitioner, Case Number 09-13106

Honorable David M. Lawson

v.

JEFFREY WOODS,

Respondent,

________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The petitioner, Moses Keon Williams, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging

three grounds for relief. The petitioner contends that (1) the trial court violated his Sixth

Amendment right to present a defense when it refused to permit him to call an alibi witness that he

failed to disclose in a timely manner; (2) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by, among

other things, failing to make a timely investigation of his alibi witness or request a continuance to

permit a complete investigation; and (3) the trial court violated his rights under the Due Process

Clause by unreasonably denying his postconviction motion for relief from judgment.

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

Courts:

The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a

final order adverse to the applicant. . . . If the court issues a certificate, the court must

state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, a party may not appeal the denial but

may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 22.

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

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

2:09-cv-13106-DML-MJH Doc # 20 Filed 02/20/13 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1782
-2-

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Courts must either issue a certificate

of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or provide reasons why such

a certificate should not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); In re Certificates of

Appealability, 106 F.3d 1306, 1307 (6th Cir. 1997). To receive a certificate of appealability, “a

petitioner must 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.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003)

(internal quotes and citations omitted).

The Court concluded that the petitioner has not established that a decision of any state court

on the issues he raises was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal

law, and that reasonable jurists could not debate the Court’s conclusions as to his second and third

grounds for relief. However, the Court finds that reasonable jurists could debate whether the claim

that the petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense was violated by exclusion of his

alibi witness should have been resolved in a different manner, and it therefore will grant a certificate

of appealability as to that claim only.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is GRANTED as to the

petitioner’s first claim regarding the exclusion of his alibi witness only.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: February 20, 2013

2:09-cv-13106-DML-MJH Doc # 20 Filed 02/20/13 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1783
-3-

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on February 20, 2013.

s/Deborah R. Tofil 

DEBORAH R. TOFIL

2:09-cv-13106-DML-MJH Doc # 20 Filed 02/20/13 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1784