Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • United States v. Dodson, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Încărcat de

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 vizualizări3 pagini
    Douglas Dodson appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Dodson did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Dodson did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that his motion stated a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Descriere originală:

    Filed: 2010-08-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6773

    Drepturi de autor

    © Public Domain

    Formate disponibile

    PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    Douglas Dodson appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Dodson did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Dodson did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that his motion stated a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Drepturi de autor:

    Public Domain
    Descărcați ca PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    1 vizualizări3 pagini

    United States v. Dodson, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Încărcat de

    Scribd Government Docs
    Douglas Dodson appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Dodson did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Dodson did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that his motion stated a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Drepturi de autor:

    Public Domain
    Descărcați ca PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-6773

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    DOUGLAS J. DODSON, JR.,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (3:95-cr-00073-JRS; 3:10-cv-00255-JRS)

    Submitted:

    July 20, 2010

    Decided:

    August 20, 2010

    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Douglas J. Dodson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard Daniel Cooke,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Douglas J. Dodson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
    courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West
    Supp.

    2010)

    motion.

    The

    order

    is

    not

    appealable

    unless

    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.


    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006).

    A certificate of appealability

    will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a


    constitutional right.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).

    When the

    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies


    this

    standard

    by

    demonstrating

    that

    reasonable

    jurists

    would

    find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional


    claims is debatable or wrong.

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

    484

    Cockrell,

    (2000);

    (2003).

    see

    Miller-El

    v.

    537

    U.S.

    322,

    336-38

    When the district court denies relief on procedural

    grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive


    procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a
    debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
    529 U.S. at 484-85.

    Slack,

    We have independently reviewed the record

    and conclude that Dodson has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
    the appeal.

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts

    and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.
    DISMISSED

    S-ar putea să vă placă și