Mabon v. United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
MAURICE MABON, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:23-cv-02588-SHL-tmp
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
On July 15, 2026, this Court entered an Order denying Petitioner Maurice Mabon’s Petition
under to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255, 1331, and 1651 to Vacate/Correct an Unlawful Conviction and/or
Sentence. (ECF No. 16.) That Order did not address the issue of appealability. For the reasons
outlined below, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
Twenty-eight U.S.C. § 2253(a) requires district courts to evaluate the appealability of its
decision denying a § 2255 motion and to issue a certificate of appealability (“COA”) “only if the
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 	28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2); see also Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 	The COA must indicate the specific issue or issues
that satisfy the required showing. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2253(c)(2) & (3). No § 2255 petitioner may appeal
without this certificate.
A “substantial showing” is made when the petitioner demonstrates 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.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Case 2:23-cv-02588-SHL-tmp Document 20 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID
<pageID>

Where a district court has rejected a constitutional claim on the merits, the showing
required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate
that 	reasonable 	jurists 	would 	find 	the 	district 	court’s 	assessment 	of 	the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong. . . . When the district court denies a
habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying
constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of
the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling . . . .
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 	“In short, a court should not grant a certificate
without some substantial reason to think that the denial of relief might be incorrect.” Moody v.
United States, 958 F.3d 485, 488 (6th Cir. 2020). 	“To put it simply, a claim does not merit a
certificate unless every independent reason to deny the claim is reasonably debatable.” 	Id.; see
also id. (“Again, a certificate is improper if any outcome-determinative issue is not reasonably
debatable.”).
The issue raised in Movant’s § 2255 Motion is meritless for the reasons previously stated
in the Court’s Order denying his Petition. (See ECF No. 16.) Because any appeal by Petitioner
on the issue raised does not deserve attention, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of October, 2026.
s/ Sheryl H. Lipman
SHERYL H. LIPMAN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:23-cv-02588-SHL-tmp Document 20 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID
<pageID>