Whether a federal prisoner can obtain a certificate of appealability (COA) for challenging a district court's denial of post-judgment motions in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas proceeding when no constitutional claims meet the 'substantial showing' standard

No question identified. : This indigent petitioner resources have been completely exhausted by the Eleventh Circuit's repeat request for the Petitioner to refile his motions in the 11th Circuit. The Petitioner was compelled to make more than several filings with the Eleventh Circuit, because of repeat “Deficiency Notice" from fetter the 11th Circuit, see copy of Usited States Court of Appeal for the 11th Ciscuit provided herewith. (11-18-2024, 08-22-2024). The 11th Circuit repeat request for the Petitioner to file IFP Motion was later "denied as Moot." The Petitioner is totally unprerpared to proceed without 55 day time extension to obtain mote resources, The indigent Petitioner seeks only one time extension in good faith. The granting of the time extension would not prejudice the government, The {1th Circuit's repeat “No action/Deficiency Notice" claims are defects that are legally sufficient reason for time extension. The repeat refiling of Motions in the 11th Circuit was beyond the Petitioner's control. But for the 11th Ciscuit's several "No action/Deficiency Notice" claims the Petitioner would be prepared to file Certiorari. The Petitioner is without counsel. Furthermore, the Petitioner filed several Motions in the Eleventh Circuit for Appointment of Counsel, but the Court rejected all Motions, The Petitioner requested access to the Federal Pro Bono Committee, but was denied by the 11th Circuit, Appellant seeking substantial compliance with federal statutes. The indigent Petitioner does not have an attorney to represent or help him with ¢his matter, The 11th Circuit's repeat rejections of Petitioner's reasonable request for Appointment of Counsel and access 10 Federal Court's Pro Bono Committee was. prejudicial to Certiorari request. CONCLUSION For the reasons and facts already stated the Petitioner prays this HonorableUnited States Supreme Court grant this Application for time extension, Respectfully submited, ao Date: July 22, 2025 Ry 7 i ) 2 Lakeland Cl; 4 Fire otrecg Coldwateh, HX F036 USCA11 Case: 24-12491 Document: 37-2 Date Filed: 05/20/2025 Page: 1 of 4 In the United States Court of Appeals Bor the Eleventh Circuit No. 24-12491 MICHAEL RENE GARRETT, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. W-1 ORDFR: USCA11 Case: 24-12491 Document: 37-2 Date Filed: 05/20/2025 Page: 2 of 4 2 | Order of the Court 24-12491 Michael Garrett, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's denial of numerous post judgment motions, which he filed following the dismissal of his pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Garrett now moves for an expansion of the certificate of appealability (“COA”) which this Court construes as a motion for a COA, as no COA has been granted by this Court or the district court. He also moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), for appointment of counsel, and for remand to the district court. Garrett would need a COA to appeal the denial of his motion for reconsideration. Perez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 711 F.3d 1263, 1264 (11th Cir. 2013); Jackson v Crosby, 437 R3d 1290, 1294 (11th Cir. 2005). To obtain a COA, a movant must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 US.C. § 2253(c\(2). The movant satisfies this requirement by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” or that the issues “deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack » McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotation marks omitted). Here, reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s denial of Garrett’s motion for reconsideration. As a preliminary matter, as to the issues that he now attempts to add to his case in his motion for COA, those issues are not considered. See Hurley v. Moore, 233 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2000). As to the merits, the district court properly denied Garrett’s motion for reconsideration, as it was a