Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Graham, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    Charles Francis Graham appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, as Graham did not obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. To obtain a certificate, Graham needed to make a substantial showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that its procedural rulings were debatable, but the Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and found he did not make this requisite showing.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-03-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-7464

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Charles Francis Graham appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, as Graham did not obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. To obtain a certificate, Graham needed to make a substantial showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that its procedural rulings were debatable, but the Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and found he did not make this requisite showing.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Graham, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Charles Francis Graham appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, as Graham did not obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. To obtain a certificate, Graham needed to make a substantial showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that its procedural rulings were debatable, but the Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and found he did not make this requisite showing.

    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. 06-7464

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CHARLES FRANCIS GRAHAM,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
    District Judge. (3:00-cr-00134, 3:03-cv-00502)

    Submitted:

    February 22, 2007

    Decided:

    March 1, 2007

    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles Francis Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,


    United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles Francis Graham seeks to appeal the district
    courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion.
    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues a certificate of appealability.
    (2000).

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

    A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000).
    demonstrating

    that

    28

    A prisoner satisfies this standard by

    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 Graham has not
    made the requisite showing.

    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