Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Stewart v. Wright, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    1) Antonio D. Stewart appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will not consider the merits of an appeal from a § 2254 petition unless it first grants a certificate of appealability. 3) After independently reviewing the record, the Fourth Circuit concluded that Stewart did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as required. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-04-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-7705

    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) Antonio D. Stewart appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will not consider the merits of an appeal from a § 2254 petition unless it first grants a certificate of appealability. 3) After independently reviewing the record, the Fourth Circuit concluded that Stewart did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as required. 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
    10 views2 pages

    Stewart v. Wright, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Antonio D. Stewart appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will not consider the merits of an appeal from a § 2254 petition unless it first grants a certificate of appealability. 3) After independently reviewing the record, the Fourth Circuit concluded that Stewart did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as required. 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 07-7705

    ANTONIO D. STEWART,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    E. WRIGHT, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
    District Judge. (1:07-cv-00473-TSE)

    Submitted:

    March 27, 2008

    Decided:

    April 3, 2008

    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Antonio D. Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Misbach, OFFICE OF THE


    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Antonio D. Stewart seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition.

    The

    order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a


    certificate of appealability.

    See 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.

    2253(c)(2)

    demonstrating

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    satisfies

    jurists

    would

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find

    that

    by
    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.

    See

    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 Stewart
    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