# Robert Jinx Castro v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · November 13, 2002 · 310 F.3d 900

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9495545

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert Jinx CASTRO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 13, 2002
- **Citations:** 310 F.3d 900; 54 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 32; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23425; 2002 WL 31506943
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennedy
- **Judges:** Kennedy, Moore, Dowd
- **Cited by:** 182 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/9495545

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that § 2253 analysis may be done at the time the claim for relief is determined
- noting that basic rule of statutory construction is to read a statutory provision in a manner consistent with the statute’s other provisions

## Opinion text

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the panel’s opinion but write separately to acknowledge the disadvantages that may result from following the procedure our opinion suggests.
First, the issuance of a certificate of appealability contemporaneously with the decision on the writ may result in appeal when otherwise no appeal would have been filed. Second, petitioner may have otherwise requested a COA on only one or two of the issues. Without such a request, the district judge must deal with all the issues raised in the petition for the writ perhaps causing the judge unnecessary work. Third, while the petitioner may move for reconsideration where the COA is entered with the opinion, the burden on the petitioner to persuade the judge to change a ruling is greater than the burden to persuade the judge to adopt that ruling as an initial matter.
However, I concur because Fed. R.App. P. 22(B)(1) requires the district court to issue a COA ruling and we have already approved its issuance at the time of the merits decision.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9495545. Public record. Not legal advice.