1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 FREDERICK WILLIAMS, No. 1:20-cv-00082-NONE-SAB-HC 11 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING

12 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

13

TUOLUMNE COUNTY COURT, TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE AND CLOSE

CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE

14 Respondent. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 (Doc. No. 9) 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 30, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued 19 findings and recommendations recommending that the pending petition, reasoning that 20 petitioner’s claim that his current state sentence violates California’s sentencing laws fails to state 21 a cognizable federal habeas claim. (Doc. No. 9.) The findings and recommendations were served 22 on petitioner and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of 23 the date of service of the findings and recommendations. To date, petitioner has filed no 24 objections, and the time for doing so has passed.1 25

1 In lieu of filing objections, petitioner filed a motion to transfer the petition (Doc. No. 13), 26 which was denied on February 19, 2020. (Doc. No. 14.) Petitioner then filed a notice of appeal 27 of that order. (Doc. No. 15.) On March 26, 2020, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the notice of appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 18.) The mandate issued April 17, 2020. (Doc. No. 28 19.) wOAOe UV OOM ARE YAR MUO OR ee AY ee

1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(©), the court has conducted a 2 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court holds the findings 3 | and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 5 | acertificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 6 | absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 7 | allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. 8 | § 2253. The court should issue a certificate of appealability if “reasonable jurists could debate 9 | whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different 10 || manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 11 further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 US. 12 | 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). 13 In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s 14 | determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should 15 | be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 16 Accordingly: 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 30, 2020 (Doc. No. 9) are 18 adopted; 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; 20 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose of 21 closing the case and then to close the case; and 22 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 23 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ April 21, 2020 Yole A Lara 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28