Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. York, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    Kenneth Lewis York appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion seeking relief from his conviction. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that York did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability. Specifically, York did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. The Fourth Circuit further denied York's motion to transfer the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-06-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6558

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Kenneth Lewis York appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion seeking relief from his conviction. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that York did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability. Specifically, York did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. The Fourth Circuit further denied York's motion to transfer the case.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. York, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Kenneth Lewis York appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion seeking relief from his conviction. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that York did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability. Specifically, York did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. The Fourth Circuit further denied York's motion to transfer the case.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 05-6558

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    KENNETH LEWIS YORK,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District
    Judge. (CR-02-4; CA-04-679-7)

    Submitted:

    June 9, 2005

    Decided:

    June 17, 2005

    Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Kenneth Lewis York, Appellant Pro Se. Rick A. Mountcastle, Steven


    Randall Ramseyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon,
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Kenneth Lewis York seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion.

    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
    constitutional

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    claims

    are

    satisfies

    jurists

    debatable

    and

    would
    that

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find
    any

    that

    by
    his

    dispositive

    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or


    wrong.

    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
    676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have independently reviewed the

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

    We further deny Yorks motion to transfer.

    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