U.S. v. Mintz
1996 WL 666780
D.Kan.,1996.
United States District
Court, D. Kansas.
UNITED STATES of
AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
Michael M. MINTZ,
Defendant.
Civ. A. No.
91-40045-01-Des.
July 29, 1996.
Benjamin C. Wood, Death Penalty Defense Unit, Topeka, KS,
for Michael M. Mintz, defendant.
Thomas M. Dawson, Leavenworth, KS, for Paul Silvers, defendant.
William K. Rork, Rork Law Office, Topeka, KS, for Merrill Crawford, defendant.
Joseph D. Johnson, Joseph D. Johnson, Chartered, Topeka, KS, for Samuel Walker,
defendant.
Jeannine D. Herron, Topeka, KS, for Sandra Wolfe, defendant.
Richard L. Hathaway, Gregory G. Hough, Office of United States Attorney,
Topeka, KS, for U.S.
MEMORANDUM AND
ORDER
SAFFELS, District Judge:
*1 On May 22, 1996, this court
denied the defendant's Renewed Motion for Application of Amendment to
Sentencing Guidelines and for Resentencing under the Amendment (Doc. 462). The
defendant has filed a Notice of Appeal from the court's order. Pursuant to
recent amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure, this appeal may not proceed unless a district judge or
circuit judge issues a certificate of appealability. The certificate of
appealability may issue only if the defendant has made a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In Lennox v.
Evans, No. 96-6041, 1996 WL 343632, at *3 (10th Cir. 1996), the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals held that the standard established for the issuance of
a certificate of appealability is the same as that governing the issuance of a
certificate of probable cause as set forth in Barefoot v. Estelle, 463
U.S. 880, 893 (1983), i.e., the defendant must make "a substantial showing
of the denial of a federal right."
For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum and Order of May 22, 1996, the
court finds that the defendant has not made a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the court declines to issue a
certificate of appealability.
IT IS THEREFORE BY THE COURT ORDERED that the defendant is denied a certificate
of appealability.
D.Kan.,1996.
U.S. v. Mintz