Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Evans v. Smith, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    1) Gregory Evans filed a habeas corpus petition which was denied by the district court. 2) Evans seeks to appeal the denial but must obtain a certificate of appealability. 3) The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Evans did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, so it denied the certificate and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-10-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-6747

    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) Gregory Evans filed a habeas corpus petition which was denied by the district court. 2) Evans seeks to appeal the denial but must obtain a certificate of appealability. 3) The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Evans did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, so it denied the certificate and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Evans v. Smith, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Gregory Evans filed a habeas corpus petition which was denied by the district court. 2) Evans seeks to appeal the denial but must obtain a certificate of appealability. 3) The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Evans did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, so it denied the certificate 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 06-6747

    GREGORY THEOPHILUS EVANS,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RAYMOND SMITH, Superintendent,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District


    District of North Carolina, at Durham.
    District Judge. (1:05-cv-00663-WWD)

    Submitted: September 28, 2006

    Court for the Middle


    James A. Beaty, Jr.,

    Decided: October 10, 2006

    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Gregory Theophilus Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis,


    NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Gregory Theophilus Evans seeks to appeal the district
    courts order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
    and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition.

    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)

    (2000).

    demonstrating

    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    satisfies

    jurists

    would

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find

    that

    by
    any

    assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is


    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.

    Miller-El v. Cockrell,

    537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have

    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Evans has not
    made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

    appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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

    - 2 -

    You might also like