Court Opinion

ID: 9471482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:33:27.352039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:25.829091
License: Public Domain

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I am in agreement with the result reached in this case, a finding that the petitioner’s claims are without merit and *294affirming the district judge’s judgment. I would affirm, however, on the basis of the decision in Vicaretti v. Henderson, 645 F.2d 100 (2d Cir.1980) cert. denied, 454 U.S. 868, 102 S.Ct. 334, 70 L.Ed.2d 171 (1981), a well-reasoned opinion of Judge Newman. The practice of limiting the issues by a certificate of probable cause appears to “involve a court’s sensible attempt to focus the attention of the litigants on the issues that merit review under the relevant standard.” Id. at 102. As pointed out in that decision, other courts have approved this practice sub silen-tio in United States ex rel. Nunes v. Nelson, 467 F.2d 1380 (9th Cir.1972); Nelson v. Moore, 470 F.2d 1192, 1194 n. 1 (1st Cir.1972) cert. denied, 412 U.S. 951, 93 S.Ct. 3017, 37 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1973). See also United States ex rel. Sadowy v. Fay, 284 F.2d 426 (2d Cir.1960). I would approve the practice in this case of limiting the certificate of probable cause, and the appeal, to specific issues only.