Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Pleasant v. True, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    Jeffrey Pleasant appealed the magistrate judge's denial of his habeas corpus petition and motion for discovery to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal, finding that Pleasant did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a habeas petition. Specifically, Pleasant did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that any procedural rulings by the district court were debatable or wrong.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-08-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6809

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Jeffrey Pleasant appealed the magistrate judge's denial of his habeas corpus petition and motion for discovery to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal, finding that Pleasant did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a habeas petition. Specifically, Pleasant did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that any procedural rulings by the district court were debatable or wrong.

    Copyright:

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

    Pleasant v. True, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Jeffrey Pleasant appealed the magistrate judge's denial of his habeas corpus petition and motion for discovery to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal, finding that Pleasant did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a habeas petition. Specifically, Pleasant did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that any procedural rulings by the district court were debatable or wrong.

    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. 05-6809

    JEFFREY A. PLEASANT,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    PAGE TRUE,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    David G. Lowe, Magistrate
    Judge. (CA-04-429-3)

    Submitted:

    August 18, 2005

    Decided:

    August 26, 2005

    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se. Amy L. Marshall, OFFICE OF


    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Jeffrey

    A.

    Pleasant

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    magistrate

    judges* order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000)


    petition and denying his motion for discovery.

    The order is not

    appealable 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 absent a substantial showing of the
    denial of a constitutional right.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000).

    A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable


    jurists would find both that the district courts assessment of the
    constitutional

    claims

    is

    debatable

    or

    wrong

    and

    that

    any

    dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also


    debatable or wrong.

    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 Pleasant has not made the
    requisite

    showing.

    Accordingly,

    we

    appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    deny

    certificate

    of

    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

    The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge


    pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1) (2000).
    - 2 -

    You might also like