Opinion ID: 221365
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Standard for Certificate of Appealability

Text: Under AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a convict seeking a COA must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. In Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified: A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Id. at 327, 123 S.Ct. at 1034 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). Importantly, in determining this issue, we view[] the petitioner's arguments through the lens of the deferential scheme laid out in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Barrientes v. Johnson, 221 F.3d 741, 772 (5th Cir.2000). Under § 2254(d), when reviewing a claim adjudicated by a state court on the merits, we defer to the state court's decision regarding that claim, unless the decision [is] contrary to, or involve[s] an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or . . . [is] based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) & (2)).