Blackman v. Ercole, 661 F.3d 161

Blackman was convicted in New York state court of Robbery in the First Degree and sentenced to 10 years in prison (2003).
Appellate history affirmed by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal (2004–2005).
Blackman filed a pro se habeas petition in the Eastern District of New York (2006) asserting exhausted state-law and constitutional claims.
The district court denied the habeas claims on the merits (2009).
Blackman sought a COA; Clerk’s Office forwarded a form with a COA request but the form and the judge’s markings failed to specify the issue or issues for review (CA denial remand matter).
The Second Circuit remanded to the district court to specify the issue or issues for which the COA was granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the COA complied with §2253(c) by specifying the issue(s).	Blackman contends the COA lacked issue specification.	District court's form and markings purportedly granted a COA despite the lack of explicit issue wording.	Remand for specification of issues on which COA was granted.

Bell v. Fla. Att'y Gen., 614 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2010) (remand for COA issue specification)
United States v. Weaver, 195 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (requirement to specify COA issues)
Muniz v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 43 (5th Cir. 1997) (issues must be specified for COA review)
Lyons v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 105 F.3d 1063 (6th Cir. 1997) (COA issue specification requirement)
Hunter v. United States, 101 F.3d 1565 (11th Cir. 1996) (COA review procedure guidance)
Soto v. United States, 185 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 1999) (defective COA considerations in jurisdiction)