Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Ellis, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Marcus Ellis appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, as a certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Ellis did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that any procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-02-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7668

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Marcus Ellis appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, as a certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Ellis did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that any procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Ellis, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Marcus Ellis appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, as a certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Ellis did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that any procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    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. 03-7668

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MARCUS MANDEL ELLIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (CR-00-107; CA-03-2954-06-20)

    Submitted: February 19, 2004

    Decided:

    February 26, 2004

    Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Marcus Mandel Ellis, Appellant Pro Se.


    Elizabeth Jean Howard,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Marcus Ellis 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.
    (2000).

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

    A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000).
    demonstrating
    constitutional

    that

    A prisoner satisfies this standard by

    reasonable

    claims

    are

    28

    jurists

    debatable

    and

    would
    that

    find
    any

    that

    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 Ellis 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

    You might also like