GILLETTE HAWKINS v. SUPERINTENDENT HUNTINGDON SCI ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA (2016)

ORDER

Submitted is Appellant's request for a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

in the above-captioned case.

Respectfully,

Clerk

MMW/JAV/clw

The foregoing request for a certificate of appealability is denied. Jurists of reason would not debate the District Court's disposition of Gillette Hawkins's habeas claims, for substantially the reasons given in the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. In particular, jurists of reason would not debate the District Court's conclusions that the state appellate court unreasonably applied Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), and its progeny, and that the Confrontation Clause violation that occurred at Hawkins's trial was harmless in light of the other evidence of Hawkins's guilt. Cf. O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 437 (1995) (“If, when all is said and done, the [court's] conviction is sure that the error did not influence the jury, or had but very slight effect, the verdict and the judgment should stand.”).

By the Court,

Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge