In the case of Ibarra v. Thaler, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155988 the court where the court finds error in the application of the law the Respondent 's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. It is further as well addressing evidence rule 405 the order of that Petitioner 's application for federal writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED. It is further as well the ordered that Petitioner 's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED. It is further any motions not previously ruled upon by the Court are DENIED. The court found that originally rule of was not applied having considered the findings and conclusions set forth above and the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2253, the Courts find, sua sponte, that a certificate of appealability should not issue, as Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. …show more content…
The Supreme Court then ruled, contrary to Avena, that the Vienna Convention did not preclude the application of state default rules. Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331, 126 S. Ct. 2669, 165 L. Ed. 2d 557 (2006). President George W. Bush then determined, through a Memorandum to the Attorney General (Feb. 28, 2005), that the United States would " 'discharge its international obligations '" under Avena 'by having State courts give effect to the decision. '" Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. at 498. As Medellin filed his habeas action raising the Vienna Convention and the Avena case as a basis for relief, the Supreme Court determined that Avena was not binding federal law as ICJ judgments are not conclusive on American courts. Nor was the President 's Memorandum sufficient to bind Avena onto domestic courts. As a result, Petitioner 's claim is subject to procedural bar. See Leal Garcia v. Quarterman, 573 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2009). In Ibarra v. Thaler,