# Smith v. The Pennsylvania Board of Parole > District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · January 16, 2025 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10783067 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania - **Decided:** January 16, 2025 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10783067 ## Opinion text IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JONATHAN SMITH, : Civil No. 1:24-CV-01608 : Petitioner, : : v. : : THE PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF : PAROLE, et al., : : Respondents. : Judge Jennifer P. Wilson MEMORANDUM On November 29, 2024, the court entered an order dismissing the Section 2254 petition in the above captioned matter. (Doc. 4.) That order did not address the certificate of appealability (“COA”) as required under Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Therefore, the court now takes this opportunity to consider a COA and declines to issue a COA in this matter. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), unless a circuit justice or judge issues a COA, an appeal may not be taken from a final order in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A COA may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). “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). Here, jurists of reason would not conclude that the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Accordingly, no COA will be issued. An appropriate order follows. s/Jennifer P. Wilson JENNIFER P. WILSON United States District Judge Middle District of Pennsylvania Date: January 16, 2025 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10783067. Public record. Not legal advice.