1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MICHAEL ALEX GONZALES, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-0225 JLT EPG ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING THE 13 v. ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ) AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 14 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) CLOSE THE CASE CALIFORNIA, ) 15 ) ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE Respondent. ) OF APPEALABILITY 16 ) ) (Doc. 9) 17 )

18 Michael Alex Gonzales is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to

, raising the following grounds: (1) instructional error, in violation of due 20 process and Petitioner’s right to present a complete defense; and (2) insufficiency of the evidence to 21 justify conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm. (Doc. 1.) 22 The magistrate judge found the state court’s denials of Plaintiff’s claims were “not contrary to, 23 or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor was it based on an unreasonable 24 determination of fact.” (Doc. 9 at 18, 22; see also

[cleaned up].) Further, the state court’s 25 “decision was not so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended 26 in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” (Id. at 18, 22-23 [cleaned up].) 27 Therefore, the magistrate judge found Petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief on the grounds raised, 28 and recommended the Court deny the petition. (Id. at 23.) 1 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that any 2 || objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 9 at 23.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file 3 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (dd., 4 |) citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner did not file objections 5 || and the time to do so has passed. 6 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havi 7 || carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported 8 || by the record and proper analysis. In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealabilit 9 A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a distric 10 || court’s denial of his petition. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003). If the Court □□□□ 11 || a petition, it may only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial □□□□□□ 12 || of the denial of a constitutional right.

(c)(2). To make such a showing, Petitioner 13 || must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petitio 14 || should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve 15 || encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (cleaned up). In th 16 || present case, the Court finds Petitioner did not make the required substantial showing of the denial of 17 || constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Reasonable jurists would n 18 || find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, 19 || wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 20 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated August 4, 2025 (Doc. 9) are ADOPTED. 21 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. 22 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 23 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: _ September 12, 2025 ( LAW pA LU. wan 27 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28