context: Construing Lazo's notice of appeal as a motion for a COA, we determine that a COA is not warranted in this case. Fed. R.App.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1603
citation_a.parenthetical: dealing with SS 2254 motion and stating that the court of appeals should have treated the notice of appeal as an application for a COA
citation_a.sentence: P. 22(b)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1603, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (dealing with § 2254 motion and stating that the court of appeals should have treated the notice of appeal as an application for a COA); see also Gay v. United States, 816 F.2d 614, 616 n. 1 (11th Cir.1987) (stating that principles developed in § 2254 cases apply to cases involving § 2255 motions).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that principles developed in SS 2254 cases apply to cases involving SS 2255 motions
citation_b.sentence: P. 22(b)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1603, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (dealing with § 2254 motion and stating that the court of appeals should have treated the notice of appeal as an application for a COA); see also Gay v. United States, 816 F.2d 614, 616 n. 1 (11th Cir.1987) (stating that principles developed in § 2254 cases apply to cases involving § 2255 motions).