U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART VI— PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS › Chapter CHAPTER 153— HABEAS CORPUS

28 U.S.C. § 2253

Appeal

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings.(c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from—(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 967; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 113, 63 Stat. 105; Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, § 52, 65 Stat. 727; Pub. L. 104–132, title I, § 102, Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1217.)Historical and Revision Notes1948 Act

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 463(a) and 466 (Mar. 10, 1908, ch. 76, 36 [35] Stat. 40; Feb. 13, 1925, ch. 229, §§ 6, 13, 43 Stat. 940, 942; June 29, 1938, ch. 806, 52 Stat. 1232).

This section consolidates paragraph (a) of section 463, and section 466 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed.

The last two sentences of section 463(a) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., were omitted. They were repeated in section 452 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed. (See reviser’s note under section 2241 of this title.)

Changes were made in phraseology.

1949 Act

This section corrects a typographical error in the second paragraph of section 2253 of title 28.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–132 reenacted section catchline without change and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows:

“In a habeas corpus proceeding before a circuit or district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit where the proceeding is had.

“There shall be no right of appeal from such an order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove, to another district or place for commitment or trial, a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of his detention pending removal proceedings.

“An appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding where the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court, unless the justice or judge who rendered the order or a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of probable cause.”

1951—Act Oct. 31, 1951, substituted “to remove, to another district or place for commitment or trial, a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of his” for “of removal issued pursuant to section 3042 of Title 18 or the” in second par.

1949—Act May 24, 1949, substituted “3042” for “3041” in second par.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50,568 cases (17,827 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003). · cites it 12× “" 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2). A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to…”
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000). · cites it 11× “We hold as follows: *478 First, when a habeas corpus petitioner seeks to initiate an appeal of the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition after April 24, 1996 (the effective date of AEDPA), the right to appeal is governed by the certificate of appealability (COA) requirements now…”
Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 20× “Our jurisdiction to review the denial arises under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (a). [13] However, a petitioner may not appeal a "final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court," [14] unless a "circuit justice or…”
United States v. Madison McRae, 793 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2015). · cites it 11× “” 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1)(A). 2 Reid dealt with a § 2254 proceeding, but the analysis is applicable to § 2255 proceedings as well.”
United States v. Christopher Simmonds, 111 F.3d 737 (10th Cir. 1997). · cites it 16× “On appeal, we consider four issues: 1) whether this court should rule on a prisoner’s application for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (e) before requiring the government to file a brief on the.”
Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120 (2016). · cites it 4× “28 U. S. C. §2253 (c)(1). A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial show- ing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
Pursell v. Horn, 187 F. Supp. 2d 260 (W.D. Pa. 2002). · cites it 22× “Because I do not believe that Pursell has made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2), on his due process and ineffective assistance of counsel claims, I will also deny him a certificate of appealability on those claims.”
Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100 (2017). · cites it 3× “" * 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2). *773 The Fifth Circuit denied a COA, concluding that Buck's case was "not extraordinary at all in the habeas context.”
Madley v. United States Parole Comm'n, 278 F.3d 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2002). · cites it 13× “See generally 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c); Fed. R.App. P. 22(b).”
United States v. Springer, 875 F.3d 968 (10th Cir. 2017). · cites it 10× “Where required, a COA is a prerequisite to this court’s exercise of jurisdiction, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1)(B) plainly requires petitioners to obtain a COA to appeal any “final order in a proceeding under section 2255.”
Charles Edward Hunter v. United States of Am., Henry C. Bailey v. John E. Nagle, Warden, Jeff Sessions, Attorney Gen. for the State of Alabama, 101 F.3d 1565 (11th Cir. 1996). · cites it 17× “certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub.”
United States v. Angel Cepero, 224 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2000). · cites it 12× “After argument, we granted rehearing en banc to decide whether the District Court erroneously granted Cepero a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c), as amended by the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.”
Show all 50,568 citing cases →
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c): 28 cases
Sumpter v. State of Kansas, 56 F.4th 871 (10th Cir. 2022).
Sumpter v. State of Kansas, 61 F.4th 729 (10th Cir. 2023).
Prescott v. Santoro, No. 5:16-cv-01359 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2019).
Thomas v. Lemke, No. 1:13-cv-03749 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 16, 2018).
Parker v. Hardy, No. 1:09-cv-07947 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 2018).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1): 16 cases
Sanna v. DiPaulo, 265 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001).
Ogletree v. Graham, 559 F. Supp. 2d 250 (N.D.N.Y. 2008).
Alex Tribue v. United States, 958 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2020).
Cornell Delvalle v. Superintendent Frackville SCI, No. 17-2364 (3d Cir. Feb. 21, 2020).
Adkins v. Bohrer, No. 1:22-cv-00385 (D. Md. Mar. 14, 2023).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A): 13 cases
Marion Bowman, Jr. v. Bryan Stirling, 45 F.4th 740 (4th Cir. 2022).
Wingfield v. Jaques, No. 20-1120 (10th Cir. Aug. 31, 2020).
Hughes v. Pfister, No. 1:17-cv-02171 (N.D. Ill. May 26, 2020).
Johnson v. Clarke, No. 3:20-cv-00172 (E.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2020).
Brumit v. Rogers, No. 24-6202 (10th Cir. Feb. 6, 2025).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B): 3 cases
United States v. Jocelyn Furisma, No. 16-16734 (11th Cir. Mar. 28, 2018).
United States v. Lacy, No. 23-3133 (10th Cir. Jan. 10, 2024).
United States v. Sandoval-Flores, 168 F.4th 1330 (10th Cir. 2026).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2): 102 cases
Gutierrez v. Dretke, 392 F. Supp. 2d 802 (W.D. Tex. 2005).
Wood v. Dretke, 386 F. Supp. 2d 820 (W.D. Tex. 2005).
Moreno v. Dretke, 362 F. Supp. 2d 773 (W.D. Tex. 2005).
Baez Arroyo v. Dretke, 362 F. Supp. 2d 859 (W.D. Tex. 2005).
Fowler-Bey v. Johnson, No. 8:18-cv-01235 (D. Md. May 6, 2020).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3): 9 cases
Martin v. Skipper, No. 4:19-cv-12787 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 8, 2020).
Fette v. Horton, No. 4:20-cv-10020 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 3, 2020).
Lojewski v. Christiansen, No. 4:21-cv-11723 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 8, 2021).
Moore v. Jackson, No. 4:21-cv-10406 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2022).
Davis v. Floyd, No. 2:21-cv-12105 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 29, 2022).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.