Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Frett, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Raymond Frett's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. To appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion, the petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could debate whether the district court's assessment of constitutional claims was debatable or wrong. However, the court independently reviewed Frett's case and determined he did not make the required showing. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-03-11 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7366

    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 Raymond Frett's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. To appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion, the petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could debate whether the district court's assessment of constitutional claims was debatable or wrong. However, the court independently reviewed Frett's case and determined he did not make the required 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. Frett, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Raymond Frett's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. To appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion, the petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could debate whether the district court's assessment of constitutional claims was debatable or wrong. However, the court independently reviewed Frett's case and determined he did not make the required 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. 04-7366

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    RAYMOND FRETT,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.
    Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (CR-02-1381; CA-04-1133-3-17)

    Submitted:

    February 23, 2005

    Decided:

    March 11, 2005

    Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
    Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Raymond Frett, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Hunter Young, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Raymond Frett, a federal prisoner, 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.
    (2000).

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

    A 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 the district courts assessment of his
    constitutional

    claims

    is

    debatable

    or

    wrong

    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-

    38 (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 Frett has not made the
    requisite

    showing.

    Accordingly,

    we

    appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    deny

    certificate

    of

    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