UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT


UNITED STATES

v.

WEAVER, WINSTON


99-3063a

D.C. Cir. 1999


*	*	*


Ginsburg, Circuit Judge: Winston Weaver appeals the  denial of his
habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28  U.S.C. s 2255. Because
appellate review is limited to the  issues specified in the
certificate of appealability, and the  district court did not specify
the issue(s) with respect to  which Weaver made a substantial showing
that he was denied  a constitutional right, we remand the record for
supplementa- tion.


I. Background


In 1992 Winston Weaver was convicted of conspiracy to  distribute more
than 50 grams of cocaine and cocaine base,  two counts of attempted
distribution of cocaine and cocaine  base within 1,000 feet of a
school, and unlawful use of a  communication facility. Weaver's
conviction and 120-month  sentence were affirmed by this court on
direct appeal. Unit- ed States v. Weaver, 55 F.3d 685 (D.C. Cir. 1995)
(table). In  1997 Weaver filed a motion to vacate his conviction
pursuant  to 28 U.S.C. s 2255, based upon ineffective assistance of 
counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. He claimed his trial  counsel
was ineffective for failing to cross-examine witnesses  properly, to
locate a defense witness, and to obtain impeach- ment evidence against
witnesses, and that the prosecutor  engaged in misconduct.


In April 1999, after briefing but without argument, the  district court
denied Weaver's s 2255 motion. Weaver then  filed with the district
court an application for a certificate of  appealability (COA),
asserting that the court improperly  failed to resolve certain issues
and to provide him with an  evidentiary hearing, which he deemed
particularly important  because he was trying to establish (1) when
defense counsel  and the Government learned that one of the
Government's  witnesses had testified falsely; and (2) that counsel
had made  no attempt to locate a defense witness. The district court 


II. Discussion


The district court is to issue a COA only if the applicant  has made "a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitu- tional right." See 28
U.S.C. s 2253(c)(2). The COA must  "indicate which specific issue or
issues satisfy" that standard,  28 U.S.C. s 2253(c)(3)--unless perhaps
the petitioner has  presented only one issue to the district court.
See Else v.  Johnson, 104 F.3d 82, 83 (5th Cir. 1997). Appellate
review is  limited to the issue(s) specified in the COA. See, e.g.,
Mur- ray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 1998).


In this case the district court did not, as required by 28  U.S.C. s
2253(c)(3), specify the issue or issues as to which  Weaver made a
substantial showing he was denied a constitu- tional right. Because
Weaver's application for a COA raises  several claims, it is
impossible to glean from the present  record which issue(s) the
district court thought worthy of  appeal. Cf. Murray, 145 F.3d at
1250-51 (determining that  while court of appeals could not decide
issue not specified in  COA, it could "construe the issue
specification in light of the  pleadings and other parts of the
record"). Therefore we  must remand the record for the district court
to specify the  issue or issues for appeal. See Muniz v. Johnson, 114
F.3d  43, 46 (5th Cir. 1997); Lyons v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 105 
F.3d 1063, 1076 (6th Cir. 1997); Hunter v. United States, 101  F.3d
1565, 1584 (11th Cir. 1996); but cf. Tiedeman v. Benson,  122 F.3d
518, 522 (8th Cir. 1997) (holding remand for specifi- cation of issues
unnecessary where clear from briefing appel- lant had not made
substantial showing he was denied any  constitutional right).


It is so ordered.