GEER v. U.S

On December 3, 2010, the Court issued an Order Denying Petitioner Roy Geer's ("Geer") Motion to Vacate Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (D.E. 52). The Court must now determine whether a Certificate of Appealability (COA) shall issue in this case. See Edwards v. United States, 114 F.3d 1083, 1084-85 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)). Generally, a COA may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Geer "must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In his Motion for COA, Geer has demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find debatable this Court's assessment that Geer did not make a substantial showing that his trial counsel deprived him of the right to testify in violation of the Sixth Amendment. See Nichols v. Butler, 953 F.2d 1550, 1553 n. 8 (11th Cir. 1992) (Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment that the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel, noting that "the reasons given by [defendant] for wanting to testify also appear reasonable").

Accordingly, Petitioner Roy Geer's Motion for Certificate of Appealability (D.E. 54), filed on December 8, 2010, is GRANTED, and a Certificate of Appealability SHALL ISSUE in accordance with the above analysis and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 3rd day of January, 2011.