USA v. Baxter et al

District of Columbia, dcd-1:2003-cr-00516-105075

MEMORANDUM ORDER as to GWENDOLYN M. HEMPHILL, denying defendant's application for a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 7/3/09.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GWENDOLYN M. HEMPHILL,)) Petitioner,)) v.) Criminal Case No. 03-516-3 (RJL)) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,)) FILED Respondent.)) JUL 0 6 2009 MEMO~NDUM (July-.3 ORDER 2009) [#379, 03-cr-516-3] NANCY MAYER WHITTINGTON, CLERK U,S, DiSTRICT COURT On January 10,2008, Gwendolyn M. Hemphill moved to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ([Dkt. #367].) Hemphill sought an order vacating her conviction on account of ineffective assistance of counsel. On March 9,2009, this Court denied her motion, finding that she failed to establish deficiency of counselor resulting prejudice, as required for ineffective assistance of counsel claims. (Mem. Op., Mar. 9,2009 [Dkt. #376].) Presently before the Court is Hemphill's Application for a Certificate of Appealability ("COA"). A COA may issue only if the applicant "has made a substantial showing of the denial ofa constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The applicant must show "that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) 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. 1 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). Because reasonable jurists could not find it debatable that Hemphill's ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails for lack of counsel deficiency and lack of prejudice, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant's application for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. United States District Judge 2