UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Before BRISCOE, LUCERO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
To be entitled to a COA, Greco must make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make the requisite showing, he must demonstrate "that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 322 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quotations omitted). In evaluating whether Greco has satisfied his burden, this court undertakes "a preliminary, though not definitive, consideration of the [legal] framework" applicable to each of his claims. Id. at 338. Although Greco need not demonstrate his appeal will succeed to be entitled to a COA, he must "prove something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith." Id.
Having undertaken a review of Greco's application for a COA and appellate filings, the district court's order, and the entire record on appeal pursuant to the framework set out by the Supreme Court in Miller-El, this court concludes that Greco is not entitled to a COA. The district court's resolution of Greco's § 2255 motion is not reasonably subject to debate and the issue he seeks to raise on appeal is not adequate to deserve further proceedings. Accordingly, this court denies Greco's request for a COA and dismisses this appeal. Greco's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is granted.
Entered for the Court
CLERK, COURT OF APPEALS
*.Although Greco relied on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), the Supreme Court applied the reasoning of Blakely to the federal sentencing guidelines in Booker. 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005).