Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Ramone Ethridge, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views3 pages
    Ramone Ethridge sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Ethridge did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, which is required to issue a certificate of appealability. As a result, the court denied Ethridge's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court also dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-03-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-7737

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Ramone Ethridge sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Ethridge did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, which is required to issue a certificate of appealability. As a result, the court denied Ethridge's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court also dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Ramone Ethridge, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Ramone Ethridge sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Ethridge did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, which is required to issue a certificate of appealability. As a result, the court denied Ethridge's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court also dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the court materials.

    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. 13-7737

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    RAMONE HAISON ETHRIDGE,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:10-cr-00206-BO-2; 5:13-cv-00312-BO)

    Submitted:

    March 11, 2014

    Before FLOYD, Circuit


    Circuit Judges.

    Judge,

    Decided:

    and

    HAMILTON

    and

    March 21, 2014

    DAVIS,

    Senior

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Ramone Haison Ethridge, Appellant Pro Se.


    Burnette, Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE
    ATTORNEY,
    Dennis
    Michael
    Duffy,
    Assistant
    Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    S. Katherine
    UNITED STATES
    United
    States

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Ramone Haison Ethridge seeks to appeal the district
    courts
    motion.
    judge

    order

    denying

    on

    his

    28

    U.S.C.

    2255

    (2012)

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or


    issues

    certificate

    2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
    issue

    relief

    absent

    constitutional

    of

    appealability.

    28

    U.S.C.

    A certificate of appealability will not

    substantial

    right.

    28

    showing
    U.S.C.

    of

    the

    denial

    2253(c)(2).

    of

    When

    a
    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.

    Slack,

    529 U.S. at 484-85.


    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
    that Ethridge has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly,

    we deny Ethridges motion for a certificate of appealability and


    dismiss the appeal.
    facts

    and

    legal

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like