Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Richardson, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Earl Richardson's appeal of a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal a § 2255 denial, which requires the appellant to show that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Richardson did not make this requisite showing. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-05-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-6316

    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 Earl Richardson's appeal of a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal a § 2255 denial, which requires the appellant to show that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Richardson did not make this requisite showing. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Richardson, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Earl Richardson's appeal of a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal a § 2255 denial, which requires the appellant to show that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Richardson did not make this requisite showing. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 03-6316

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    EARL E. RICHARDSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    James R. Spencer, District
    Judge. (CR-96-122, CA-03-149-3)

    Submitted:

    April 18, 2003

    Decided:

    May 22, 2003

    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Earl E. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE


    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Earl E. Richardson, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255
    (2000) motion.

    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)(2) (2000).

    prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable


    jurists

    would

    find

    both

    that

    his

    constitutional

    claims

    are

    debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the


    district court are also debatable or wrong.

    See Miller-El v.

    Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
    473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert.
    denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001).

    We have independently reviewed the

    record and conclude that Richardson has not made the requisite
    showing.

    Accordingly, we deny 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 the court and argument would no aid the decisional
    process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like