Brian Travis Jack v. Warden Kevin Roberts ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOV 28, 2007
No. 07-10507 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00195-CV-4
BRIAN TRAVIS JACK,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN KEVIN ROBERTS,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(November 28, 2007)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Brian Travis Jack, a Georgia state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial
of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. After review, we
affirm.
We granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on the following two
questions:
(1) Whether the district court erred when it denied appellant’s
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims in the absence
of the trial transcript.
(2) Whether the district court’s resolution of appellant’s ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel claims was sufficient for this
Court to conduct a meaningful review on appeal.
As to the first issue, the parties now agree that the district court had the trial
transcript when it ruled on Jack’s § 2254 petition, and the record supports their
position. The entire trial transcript, including the closing arguments, was filed in
the district court on August 3, 2006. The magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) was entered on August 18, 2006 and the district court
adopted the R&R and denied Jack’s § 2254 petition on November 15, 2006.
As to the second issue, the parties also now agree that the district court’s
ruling on Jack’s § 2254 petition is sufficient to allow us to conduct meaningful
review. After reviewing the district court’s order and the R&R it adopted, we
agree.
Finally, Jack raises the merits of his claims regarding the ineffective
2
assistance of his appellate counsel. However, the COA does not cover those
issues. Furthermore, the questions posed in the COA are procedural ones that can,
and have been, answered without a need to consider the merits of Jack’s ineffective
assistance claims. Thus, we decline to address Jack’s additional arguments. See
Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1998) (concluding that “in
an appeal brought by an unsuccessful habeas petitioner, appellate review is limited
to the issues specified in the COA”).
AFFIRMED.
3