Opinion ID: 4037098
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: COA Requirements

Text: A COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to our review of Mr. Drennan’s claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (“Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from the final order in a 2 Because we agree Mr. Drennan’s § 2254 application was time-barred, we do not address the district court’s mixed-petition rationale. -3- habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court[.]”); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Issuance of a COA requires “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). But when a federal district court denies a § 2254 application on procedural grounds—as happened here—the COA standard requires an applicant to show that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (emphasis added). Because we may “dispose of the application in a fair and prompt manner” by resolving whichever issue presents the “more apparent” answer, id. at 485, we begin and end our discussion with the district court’s procedural ruling.