Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Boynton, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed David Boynton's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The court determined that Boynton did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, as reasonable jurists would not debate that the district court correctly dismissed the § 2255 motion on procedural grounds or that the motion stated a valid claim of denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Boynton's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-06-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-6808

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed David Boynton's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The court determined that Boynton did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, as reasonable jurists would not debate that the district court correctly dismissed the § 2255 motion on procedural grounds or that the motion stated a valid claim of denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Boynton's appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Boynton, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed David Boynton's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The court determined that Boynton did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, as reasonable jurists would not debate that the district court correctly dismissed the § 2255 motion on procedural grounds or that the motion stated a valid claim of denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Boynton's 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. 03-6808

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DAVID BOYNTON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    James R. Spencer, District
    Judge. (CR-97-294; CA-03-307-3)

    Submitted:

    June 2, 2004

    Decided:

    June 14, 2004

    Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    David Boynton, Appellant Pro Se.


    N. George Metcalf, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    David Boynton seeks to appeal the district courts order
    dismissing as untimely his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255
    (2000).

    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

    2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a


    certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    When, as here, a district court dismisses a 2255 motion solely on


    procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue
    unless the movant can demonstrate both (1) that jurists of reason
    would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim
    of the denial of a constitutional right and (2) that jurists of
    reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
    correct in its procedural ruling.

    Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684

    (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
    (2000)). After considering our recent decision in United States v.
    Sosa, 364 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 2004), and independently reviewing the
    record,
    showing.

    we

    conclude

    that

    Boynton

    has

    not

    made

    the

    requisite

    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like