Before this Court is what has been construed as petitioner Kendrick Thompson's application for a certificate of appealability from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus [doc.#17]. This Court has the authority to issue such a certificate. See, e.g., Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 89 (1998); Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518 (8th Cir. 1997). A certificate of appealability certifies that the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, that is, a showing that the issues are debatable among reasonable jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently, or the issues deserve further proceedings. See, e.g., Carson v. Director of the Iowa Dept. of Correctional Services, 150 F.3d 973, 975 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 819 (1999). With respect to claims that are procedurally barred, the Eighth Circuit has summarized the factors to consider when determining whether a certificate of appealability should issue when a habeas claim is denied on procedural grounds: "(1) if the claim is clearly procedurally defaulted, the certificate should not be issued; (2) even if the procedural default is not clear, if there is no merit to the substantive constitutional claims, the certificate should not be issued; but, (3) if the procedural default is not clear and the substantive constitutional claims are debatable among jurists of reason, the certificate should be granted." Khaimov v. Crist, 297 F.3d 783, 786 (8th Cir. 2002) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000)). After reviewing the record in this case, this Court determines that petitioner has failed to make the required showing of the denial of a constitutional right as to the dismissal of his claims as being procedurally barred. Accordingly, petitioner's motion seeking a certificate of appealability should be and hereby is denied.