June 9, 2013
CLIFFORD JACKSON, Petitioner,
CAROLYN CROSS, et al., Respondents.
RICHARD J. LEON, District Judge.
A certificate of appealability is warranted only if petitioner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Such a showing may include a demonstration 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. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)).
In this case, petitioner challenged the timeliness of his parole revocation hearing and demanded "a Hearing on the merits, reinstatement or, in the alternative, to be released immediately" from custody. Pet. at 6. Although petitioner's revocation hearing did not occur within the time limits set forth in the applicable regulation, see 28 C.P.R. § 2.1 02(f), he did indeed have a revocation hearing at which he was represented by counsel. See United States' Opp'n to Pet'r's Pro Se Pet. for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Ex. 11 (Hearing Summary) at 1. The United States Parole Commission denied parole, see generally id, Ex. 12 (Notice of Action dated August 31, 2012), and this decision was affirmed on appeal to the Parole Commission's Appeals Unit. See generally id, Ex. 13-14 (Appeal dated Sept. 14, 2012 and Notice of Action on Appeal dated Oct. 16, 2012, respectively).
On review of petitioner's motion and the record of this case, the Court concludes that a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability  is DENIED.