DAVID BRIONES, United States District Judge.
On this day, the Court considered Movant Tadeo-Macias-Cisneros's "Application for Certificate of Appealability," filed November 24, 2000, in the above-captioned cause. The Government did not file a response.
Background
The Court sentenced Movant to serve a ninety-two month term of imprisonment for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326, illegal reentry. Movant commenced this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action on July 16, 1999. After several rounds of referrals to a United States Magistrate Judge for reports and recommendations, the Court ultimately denied Movant's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus and entered judgment in Respondent's favor. Movant filed a Notice of Appeal and the instant motion.
Discussion
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2253 precludes any appeal from dismissal of a § 2255 action unless a circuit justice or district judge first has issued a Certificate of Appealability ("COA"). See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2000). To obtain a COA, a petitioner must make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Id. at § 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, a petitioner need not show that he should prevail on the merits. Rather, a petitioner must demonstrate that there is an issue which is debatable among jurists of reason; that another court could resolve an issue in a different manner; or that questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n. 4 (1983); Hallmark v. Johnson, 118 F.3d 1073, 1076 (5th Cir. 1997). If a district court grants a COA, it must "indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required." 28 U.S.C.A. § 225 3(c)(3); see also Cannon v. Johnson, 134 F.3d 683, 685 (5th Cir. 1998).
Here, Movant again contends that his counsel at sentencing failed to properly support a certain objection with case law and/or facts and, consequently, Movant received a sentence fifteen months higher than he should have (i.e. counsel was ineffective and Movant was thereby prejudiced). Having reviewed the Court's Order dismissing Movant's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the showing Movant makes with respect to the instant motion, the Court finds that Movant has failed to demonstrate that any issue is debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve any issue in a different manner; or that any question is adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Specifically, even if Movant could show that his counsel was ineffective, Movant cannot show that this Court would have sentenced him at the bottom of the guideline range he claims he is entitled to. It is beyond debate that because Movant's sentence falls within the same range he seeks — albeit not at the bottom — Movant cannot show any prejudice. Thus, after due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that Petitioner's Application for Certificate of Appealability should be denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Movant Tadeo-Macias-Cisneros's "Application for Certificate of Appealability" is DENIED.