David Anthony Rostan, Jr. v. United States , 213 F. App'x 943 ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
January 17, 2007
No. 05-12733 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket Nos.
03-61167-CV-JAG
97-06002 CR-JAG
DAVID ANTHONY ROSTAN, JR.,
a.k.a. Anthony David Rostano,
a.k.a. David Anthony Rostano,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(January 17, 2007)
Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant David Rostan, through counsel, challenges the district court’s
denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. After the denial of his § 2255 motion, Rostan filed a pro se application for
certificate of appealability that asserted six different issues, which the district court
granted in a blanket order.
Before addressing the merits of his claims, we note that, when the district
court grants a certificate of appealability, its order “shall indicate which specific
issue or issues satisfy the showing required by [§ 2253(c)(2)].” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(3). Because the district court’s order did not comply with the mandates
of § 2253(c)(3), we vacate the order and remand this case to the district court for
the court to specify the issues on which Rostan “made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).1
VACATED and REMANDED.
1
Although we have in the past chosen to decide for ourselves which issues, if any,
warranted a COA, here, remand seems to be the more viable option. See Thomas v. Crosby, 371
F.3d 782, 796 (11th Cir. 2004) (discussing court of appeal’s discretion whether to remand case to
district court or whether to apply the COA standards itself), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1063, 125 S.
Ct. 888 (2005).
2