Phillip Joshua Yellin v. United States

In Miller-El1, this Court held of the relatively low level of showing necessary from a habeas Petitioner like Phillip J. Yellin to be entitled to a COA 2: [O]ur opinion in Slack [Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000)] held that a COA does not require a showing that the appeal will succeed. Accordingly, a court of appeals should not decline the application for a COA merely because it believes the applicant will not demonstrate an entitlement to relief. Miller-El, at 337, emphasis added. Therefore, the first question presented by Mr. Yellin is:

1. Did the Ninth Circuit ignore the process, reemphasized by this Court in Buck v. Davis 3 and Miller-El, when it refused to issue a COA compelled by Yellin’s highly specific, corroborated actual innocence evidence, thereby arbitrarily demanding of him a more onerous showing than that long ago established by this Court in Schlup?4 In Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 82 n.25 (1977), this Court warned lower courts that in habeas petitions

2. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U. S. 322, 336 (2003).

3. Certificate of Appealability. 3 Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115 (2017).

4. Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995).