Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Patterson, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views3 pages
    1) Robert Patterson appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denial of his Rule 59(e) motion as a successive § 2255 motion. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals must issue a certificate of appealability for Patterson's claims to be heard, which requires a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. 3) The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Patterson did not make the requisite showing. It therefore denied the certificate of appealability, denied his motion for counsel, and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-07-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-8082

    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) Robert Patterson appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denial of his Rule 59(e) motion as a successive § 2255 motion. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals must issue a certificate of appealability for Patterson's claims to be heard, which requires a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. 3) The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Patterson did not make the requisite showing. It therefore denied the certificate of appealability, denied his motion for counsel, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Patterson, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Robert Patterson appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denial of his Rule 59(e) motion as a successive § 2255 motion. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals must issue a certificate of appealability for Patterson's claims to be heard, which requires a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. 3) The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Patterson did not make the requisite showing. It therefore denied the certificate of appealability, denied his motion for counsel, 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. 09-8082

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ROBERT EDWARD PATTERSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:04-cr-00049-BO-1; 5:07-cv-00385-BO)

    Submitted:

    July 14, 2010

    Decided:

    July 22, 2010

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Robert Edward Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak, Steve


    R. Matheney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Edward Patterson seeks to appeal the district
    courts

    orders

    denying

    him

    relief

    on

    his

    28

    U.S.C.A.

    2255

    (West Supp. 2010) motion and treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
    motion as a successive 2255 motion, and denying it on that
    basis.
    or

    The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice

    judge

    issues

    certificate

    of

    appealability.

    28

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th


    Cir.

    2004).

    certificate

    of

    appealability

    will

    not

    issue

    absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional


    right.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).

    When the district court

    denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard


    by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
    district
    debatable

    courts
    or

    assessment

    wrong.

    Slack

    of

    the

    constitutional

    v.

    McDaniel,

    529

    claims

    is

    473,

    484

    U.S.

    (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

    debatable

    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    Slack, 529 U.S.

    at

    the

    484-85.

    conclude

    that

    Accordingly,

    We

    have

    independently

    Patterson
    we

    deny

    has

    not

    made

    certificate

    reviewed
    the
    of

    record

    requisite

    and

    showing.

    appealability,

    deny

    Pattersons motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the


    appeal.
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like