Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    George McBride appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that McBride did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which requires demonstrating the denial of a constitutional right. While expanding the record on appeal, the court denied McBride's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, concluding he did not show his constitutional claims were debatable or any procedural rulings were wrong. The appeal was dismissed without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-07-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-6019

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    George McBride appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that McBride did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which requires demonstrating the denial of a constitutional right. While expanding the record on appeal, the court denied McBride's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, concluding he did not show his constitutional claims were debatable or any procedural rulings were wrong. The appeal was dismissed without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    George McBride appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that McBride did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which requires demonstrating the denial of a constitutional right. While expanding the record on appeal, the court denied McBride's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, concluding he did not show his constitutional claims were debatable or any procedural rulings were wrong. The appeal was dismissed without oral argument.

    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. 04-6019

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    GEORGE RICHARD MCBRIDE,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
    Lacy H. Thornburg,
    District Judge. (CR-00-69; CA-03-196-1)

    Submitted:

    May 26, 2004

    Decided:

    July 1, 2004

    Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    George Richard McBride, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik,


    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    George Richard McBride seeks to appeal the district
    courts order denying relief on his motion filed under 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).

    certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by


    a district court 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 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, 537 U.S. 322, 336

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

    We have independently reviewed

    the record and conclude that McBride has not made the requisite
    showing. Accordingly, although we grant McBrides motion to expand
    the record on appeal, we deny McBrides motions for 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