Rainwater Law Group

Effective Criminal Defense

U.S. v. Winkles, No. 13-56376 [July 31, 2015]

U.S. v. Winkles

2255 action in which the petitioner appealed the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, claiming that his petition should be reopened as he was prevented from filing by prison conditions and a lack of the trial transcript. The petitioner argued that he was not required to get a COA, which was denied by both the district court and the 9th. The court held that “in keeping with the Supreme Court’s holding in Harbison, the text of section 2253(c), and the policy underlying the statute – that a COA is required to appeal the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment arising out of the denial of a section 2255 motion.” The standard from granting a COA after denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is that the movant must show “that (1) jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion and (2) jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the underlying section 2255 motion states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.” Applying the standard, the court found he was not entitled to a COA and dismissed

blog comments powered by Disqus