Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Jametrius Laquan Judge sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal, finding that Judge did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, the court found that Judge did not demonstrate that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims was debatable or wrong, or that his motion stated a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-09-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6891

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which Jametrius Laquan Judge sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal, finding that Judge did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, the court found that Judge did not demonstrate that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims was debatable or wrong, or that his motion stated a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Jametrius Laquan Judge sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal, finding that Judge did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, the court found that Judge did not demonstrate that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims was debatable or wrong, or that his motion stated a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    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. 10-6891

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JAMETRIUS LAQUAN JUDGE,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.
    Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
    (4:09-cv-70116-TLW; 4:06-cr-01317-TLW-5)

    Submitted:

    August 26, 2010

    Decided:

    September 7, 2010

    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jametrius Laquan Judge, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Sheppard


    Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jametrius Laquan Judge seeks to appeal the district
    courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West
    Supp.

    2010)

    motion.

    The

    order

    is

    not

    appealable

    unless

    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.


    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006).

    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) (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 courts assessment of the constitutional


    claims is debatable or wrong.

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

    484

    Cockrell,

    (2000);

    (2003).

    see

    Miller-El

    v.

    537

    U.S.

    322,

    336-38

    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 a
    debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
    529 U.S. at 484-85.
    and

    conclude

    that

    Slack,

    We have independently reviewed the record


    Judge

    has

    not

    made

    the

    requisite

    showing.

    Accordingly, we 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