UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
______________________________________
)
VERNON NORMAN EARLE, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 10-0797 (PLF)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Respondent. )
______________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Order from the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit, directing prompt notification of this Court's "issuance of
either a certificate of appealability or statement why a certificate should not issue." Order, No.
13-5314 (Oct. 21, 2013). A certificate of appealability (“COA”) may issue only if the petitioner
“has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2).
A "substantial showing" includes "showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the
petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were
'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’ ” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
483-84 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). If the certificate is
granted, the court must specify which issues raise a substantial showing. United States v.
Weaver, 195 F.3d 52, 53 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
When, as here, a habeas petition is denied “on procedural grounds without
reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue [if] jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right and [if] jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its
procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has
instructed that “[w]here a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke
it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred
in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. In such a
circumstance, no appeal would be warranted.” Id.
For the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion accompanying the dismissal
order from which petitioner appeals, the Court finds no reasonably debatable question
surrounding its application of the independent and adequate state ground doctrine to resolve this
case. It therefore concludes that a COA is unwarranted. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall not issue; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall transmit a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit.
SO ORDERED.
/s/_______________________
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge
DATE: October 24, 2013
2