Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 556.0

529US2

Unit: $U50

[09-26-01 10:29:49] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 473 (2000)

481

Opinion of the Court

“(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certiﬁ-
cate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the
court of appeals from—

“(A) the ﬁnal order in a habeas corpus proceeding in
which the detention complained of arises out of process
issued by a State court; or

“(B) the ﬁnal order in a proceeding under section

2255.

“(2) A certiﬁcate of appealability may issue under
paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substan-
tial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

“(3) The certiﬁcate of appealability under paragraph
(1) shall indicate which speciﬁc issue or issues satisfy
the showing required by paragraph (2).” 28 U. S. C.
§ 2253(c) (1994 ed., Supp. III).

The issue we consider at the outset is whether the pre- or
post-AEDPA version of § 2253 controls Slack’s right to ap-
peal.
In Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320 (1997), the Court
held that AEDPA’s amendments to 28 U. S. C. § 2254, the
statute governing entitlement to habeas relief in the district
court, applied to cases ﬁled after AEDPA’s effective date.
521 U. S., at 327. Slack contends that Lindh means § 2253(c)
does not apply to him because his case was commenced in
the District Court pre-AEDPA. That position is incorrect.
For purposes of implementing the holding in Lindh, it must
be recognized that § 2254 is directed to proceedings in the
district courts while § 2253 is directed to proceedings in
Just as § 2254 applies to cases ﬁled
the appellate courts.
in the trial court post-AEDPA, § 2253 applies to appellate
proceedings initiated post-AEDPA. True, Lindh requires a
court of appeals to apply pre-AEDPA law in reviewing the
trial court’s ruling, for cases commenced there pre-AEDPA;
but post-AEDPA law governs the right to appeal in cases
such as the one now before us.

While an appeal is a continuation of the litigation started
it is a distinct step. Hohn v. United

in the trial court,