Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Alohondra Staton, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    15 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Alohondra Rey Staton appealed a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The circuit court independently reviewed the record and determined that Staton did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, which is required for a certificate of appealability. As such, the circuit court denied Staton's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The circuit court also construed Staton's informal brief as a request to recall the mandate in his direct appeal, which it then denied.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-03-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-7838

    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 Alohondra Rey Staton appealed a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The circuit court independently reviewed the record and determined that Staton did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, which is required for a certificate of appealability. As such, the circuit court denied Staton's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The circuit court also construed Staton's informal brief as a request to recall the mandate in his direct appeal, which it then denied.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Alohondra Staton, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Alohondra Rey Staton appealed a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The circuit court independently reviewed the record and determined that Staton did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, which is required for a certificate of appealability. As such, the circuit court denied Staton's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The circuit court also construed Staton's informal brief as a request to recall the mandate in his direct appeal, which it then denied.

    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. 13-7838

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    ALOHONDRA REY STATON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Greenville.
    Malcolm J. Howard,
    Senior District Judge. (4:00-cr-00054-H-1; 4:13-cv-00209-H)

    Submitted:

    March 14, 2014

    Decided:

    March 28, 2014

    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Alohondra Rey Staton, Appellant Pro Se.


    Banumathi Rangarajan,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Alohondra
    courts
    motion.
    judge

    order

    Rey

    denying

    Staton
    relief

    on

    to

    his

    appeal

    28

    U.S.C.

    the

    district

    2255

    (2012)

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or


    issues

    certificate

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

    seeks

    absent

    of

    28

    U.S.C.

    A certificate of appealability will not

    substantial

    constitutional right.

    appealability.

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).

    of

    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.

    Slack,

    529 U.S. at 484-85.


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

    Accordingly, we

    deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    In

    addition, we construe Statons informal brief on appeal as a


    motion to recall the mandate in his direct appeal (as Staton
    requests),

    and

    we

    deny

    the

    motion.
    2

    We

    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


    presented in the materials before this court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like