Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Joseph Harris, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views3 pages
    1) Joseph Harris sought to appeal the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as an unauthorized successive motion, as well as the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal such orders, which will not be granted absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Harris did not make the requisite showing, so it denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-09-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-6749

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Joseph Harris sought to appeal the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as an unauthorized successive motion, as well as the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal such orders, which will not be granted absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Harris did not make the requisite showing, so it denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    0 views3 pages

    United States v. Joseph Harris, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Joseph Harris sought to appeal the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as an unauthorized successive motion, as well as the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal such orders, which will not be granted absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Harris did not make the requisite showing, so it denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-6749

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JOSEPH H. HARRIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Robert E. Payne, Senior
    District Judge. (3:06-cr-00163-REP-1; 3:13-cv-00768-REP)

    Submitted:

    September 25, 2014

    Decided:

    September 30, 2014

    Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Joseph H. Harris, Appellant Pro Se.


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

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Joseph H. Harris seeks to appeal the district courts
    orders

    dismissing

    his

    28

    U.S.C.

    2255

    (2012)

    motion

    as

    an

    unauthorized, successive motion, and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P.


    59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment.
    not

    appealable

    unless

    circuit

    certificate of appealability.
    A

    certificate

    of

    justice

    The orders are

    or

    judge

    issues

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

    appealability

    will

    not

    issue

    absent

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).
    relief

    on

    the

    demonstrating
    district

    merits,
    that

    courts

    debatable

    or

    When the district court denies

    prisoner

    reasonable

    assessment

    wrong.

    satisfies

    jurists

    would

    of

    the

    v.

    McDaniel,

    Slack

    this

    standard

    find

    constitutional
    529

    U.S.

    by

    that

    the

    claims

    is

    473,

    484

    (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).


    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

    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    debatable

    Slack, 529 U.S.

    at 484-85.
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
    that Harris has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we

    deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.


    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because
    2

    the

    facts

    and

    We

    legal

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like