David Anthony Rostan, Jr. v. USA, No. 05-12733 (11th Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 05-12733 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT January 17, 2007 THOMAS K. KAHN 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.