Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Lambert, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    1) William Ray Lambert sought to appeal a district court order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and motion to amend as untimely. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal such an order, which will not be issued absent a substantial showing that constitutional rights were denied. 3) The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Lambert did not make the requisite showing to be entitled to a certificate of appealability, so it dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-02-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-7451

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) William Ray Lambert sought to appeal a district court order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and motion to amend as untimely. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal such an order, which will not be issued absent a substantial showing that constitutional rights were denied. 3) The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Lambert did not make the requisite showing to be entitled to a certificate of appealability, so it dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Lambert, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) William Ray Lambert sought to appeal a district court order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and motion to amend as untimely. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal such an order, which will not be issued absent a substantial showing that constitutional rights were denied. 3) The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Lambert did not make the requisite showing to be entitled to a certificate of appealability, so it 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 07-7451

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    WILLIAM RAY LAMBERT,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (7:05-cr-00013; 7:07-cv-00056)

    Submitted:

    February 21, 2008

    Decided:

    February 26, 2008

    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    William Ray Lambert, Appellant Pro Se. Joe Exum, Jr., Jennifer P.
    May-Parker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    William Ray Lambert seeks to appeal the district courts
    order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion and
    his motion to amend.

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit

    justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).

    A prisoner satisfies this

    standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that


    any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court
    is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.

    Miller-El v. Cockrell,

    537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have

    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lambert has not
    made the requisite showing that he is entitled to a certificate of
    appealability. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability
    and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like