Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Bryant, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    Keith Bryant sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denial of his Rule 59(e) motion for a new trial. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Bryant did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required for a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Bryant's motion for appointment of counsel and an investigator, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-05-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7814

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Keith Bryant sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denial of his Rule 59(e) motion for a new trial. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Bryant did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required for a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Bryant's motion for appointment of counsel and an investigator, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Bryant, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Keith Bryant sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denial of his Rule 59(e) motion for a new trial. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Bryant did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required for a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Bryant's motion for appointment of counsel and an investigator, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 02-7814

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    KEITH E. BRYANT,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR95-202-CCB, CA-01-1161-CCB)

    Submitted:

    April 30, 2003

    Decided:

    May 19, 2003

    Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Keith E. Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. James G. Warwick, OFFICE OF THE


    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Keith Bryant seeks to appeal the district courts orders
    denying his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion and denying his motion
    for a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

    An appeal may not be

    taken from the final order in a motion under 2255 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 for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent
    a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000).

    We have independently reviewed the

    record and conclude Bryant has not made the requisite showing. See
    Miller-El v. Cockrell,

    U.S.

    , 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003).

    Accordingly, we deny Bryants motion for appointment of counsel and


    an investigator, 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