Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Montford, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that dismisses an appeal from Dale McKinley Montford. The district court had denied Montford's motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows prisoners to challenge their convictions. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined that Montford did not make the required substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. As a result, the court denied Montford's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-03-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7238

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that dismisses an appeal from Dale McKinley Montford. The district court had denied Montford's motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows prisoners to challenge their convictions. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined that Montford did not make the required substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. As a result, the court denied Montford's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Montford, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that dismisses an appeal from Dale McKinley Montford. The district court had denied Montford's motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows prisoners to challenge their convictions. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined that Montford did not make the required substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. As a result, the court denied Montford's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal.

    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. 05-7238

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DALE MCKINLEY MONTFORD,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.
    Jerome B. Friedman,
    District Judge. (CR-04-45; CA-05-37-4)

    Submitted:

    February 22, 2006

    Decided:

    March 2, 2006

    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Dale McKinley Montford, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Dale McKinley Montford seeks to appeal the district
    courts order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.
    2255 (2000).

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit

    justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).

    A prisoner satisfies this

    standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that


    the district courts assessment of his constitutional claims is
    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the

    district

    court

    is

    likewise

    debatable.

    See

    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

    Montford has not made the requisite showing.

    and

    conclude

    that

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like