Trundy v. Magnusson

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Trundy v. Magnusson

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion





June 4, 1992 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]










___________________


No. 92-1063




EUGENE TRUNDY,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

MARTIN MAGNUSSON,

Defendant, Appellee.


__________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

___________________

Before

Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
_____________

___________________

Eugene Trundy pro se on Application for Certificate of
______________
Probable Cause.



__________________

__________________





































































-2-















Per Curiam. Petitioner Eugene Trundy was convicted upon
__________

pleading nolo contendere to four counts of unlawful sexual
____ __________

contact with minor children. He was sentenced to the maximum

possible: twenty years. After pursuing an unsuccessful

appeal of this sentence and a similarly unsuccessful petition

for postconviction relief, Trundy filed a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus in federal court. The district court

dismissed the petition and denied the writ. Trundy seeks to

appeal this decision. However, the district court declined

to issue a certificate of probable cause. We thus treat

Trundy's notice of appeal as a request for a certificate of

probable cause. See 28 U.S.C. 2253, Fed. R. App. P. 22 (b).
___



Petitioner has filed a memorandum in support of this

request in accordance with Local Rule 22. To justify the

issuance of a certificate of probable cause, a petitioner

must make a "'substantial showing of the denial of [a]

federal right.'" Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893
________ _______

(1983)(quoting Stewart v. Beto, 454 F.2d 268, 270 n.2 (5th
_______ ____

Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 925 (1972)). While the
_____ ______

petitioner need not show that "he should prevail on the

merits ... he must demonstrate that the issues are debatable

among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the
_____

issues [in a different manner]; or that the questions are





-2-















'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" Id.
___

at n.4 (citations omitted).

We have reviewed the petitioner's memorandum and his

supplemental filings and the record of the district court.1

We fail to discern any "detail, amplification, or explanation

of conceivably appropriate grounds for appeal ... ." Hachey
______

v. State of Maine, 453 F.2d 369, 370 (1st Cir. 1972)(per
_______________

curiam). The petitioner has failed to make the threshold

showing required to justify the issuance of a certificate of

probable cause. Accordingly, the request for a certificate

of probable cause is denied and the appeal is terminated.


























____________________

1. We have also reviewed the record of the petitioner's
state postconviction proceeding, the transcript of his change
of plea hearing, and the sentencing hearing.

-3-



































































-4-







Reference

Status
Published