Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Holden v. Lee, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    Russell Holden appealed a district court order denying his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and denied Holden a certificate of appealability. To appeal, Holden needed to show that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. However, the Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Holden did not make this requisite showing. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and denied Holden's request for appointment of counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-07-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6678

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Russell Holden appealed a district court order denying his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and denied Holden a certificate of appealability. To appeal, Holden needed to show that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. However, the Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Holden did not make this requisite showing. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and denied Holden's request for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views2 pages

    Holden v. Lee, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Russell Holden appealed a district court order denying his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and denied Holden a certificate of appealability. To appeal, Holden needed to show that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. However, the Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Holden did not make this requisite showing. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and denied Holden's request for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-6678

    RUSSELL HOLDEN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    ROBEY C. LEE, Warden of
    Raleigh, North Carolina,

    Central

    Prison,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (5:00-hc-00850-F)

    Submitted:

    January 18, 2008

    Decided:

    July 28, 2008

    Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Kevin Patrick Bradley, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill


    Ledford Cheek, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Russell Holden, Jr., seeks to appeal the district courts
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition.

    The order

    is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a


    certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    demonstrating

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    satisfies

    jurists

    would

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find

    that

    by
    any

    assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is


    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.

    Miller-El v. Cockrell,

    537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have

    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Holden has not
    made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

    appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    We further deny Holdens

    request for the appointment of counsel.

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like