Case: 1:10-cr-00387-SL Doc #: 1199 Filed: 11/02/18 1 of 3. PageID #: 33201 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JAMES C. DIMORA, PETITIONER, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:10CR387 (CASE NO. 1:17CV1288) JUDGE SARA LIOI ORDER Before the Court is the motion of James C. Dimora (“Dimora”) for a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”). (Case No. 1:17CV1288, Doc. No. 3 [“Mot.”].) On October 22, 2018, this Court denied Dimora’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. (Case No. 1:10CR387, Doc. No. 1196 (Memorandum Opinion [“MO”]); Doc. No. 1197 (Judgment Entry).) In so ruling, the Court found that the jury instructions given at Dimora’s trial were not erroneous because they did not suffer from the same overinclusiveness as the instructions given in McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355, 195 L. Ed. 2d 639 (2016). (MO at 33152; see id. at 33152-56.) Additionally, the Court found that the activities for which Dimora was convicted still qualified as “official acts” under the law. (Id. at 33158-88.) On October 31, 2018, Dimora filed the present motion for a COA. Case: 1:10-cr-00387-SL Doc #: 1199 Filed: 11/02/18 2 of 3. PageID #: 33202 An appeal may not be taken from the final order of a district court denying a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 unless a COA issues. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A COA may be issued “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000), the United States Supreme Court explained that such a showing requires the petitioner to 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.” Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Id. at 484 (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 and n.4, 103 S. Ct. 3383, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1090 (1983)). In his motion for a COA, Dimora makes a perfunctory reference to many of the arguments he raised in his § 2255, including the application to his case of the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonnell. The Court issued a detailed memorandum opinion analyzing those arguments and finds that it would serve no purpose to reproduce that analysis here. For the same reasons the Court denied Dimora’s § 2255 motion, the Court now declines to issue a certificate of appealability. No reasonable jurist could agree with Dimora that the Court’s assessment of Dimora’s claims was debatable or wrong. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. For the foregoing reasons, and for all of the reasons set forth in the Court’s memorandum opinion denying Dimora’s motion to vacate, the Court CERTIFIES that there 2 Case: 1:10-cr-00387-SL Doc #: 1199 Filed: 11/02/18 3 of 3. PageID #: 33203 is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Dimora’s motion for a COA is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 2, 2018 HONORABLE SARA LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3