Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Bryant, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Demetrius Lydell Bryant appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and subsequent denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and determined that Bryant did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. As such, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Bryant's appeal and also denied his motion to stay the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-09-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-6480

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Demetrius Lydell Bryant appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and subsequent denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and determined that Bryant did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. As such, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Bryant's appeal and also denied his motion to stay the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Bryant, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Demetrius Lydell Bryant appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and subsequent denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and determined that Bryant did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. As such, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Bryant's appeal and also denied his motion to stay 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 09-6480

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DEMETRIUS LYDELL BRYANT,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (5:05-cr-00221-F-1; 5:07-cv-00282-F)

    Submitted:

    August 26, 2009

    Before TRAXLER,
    Judges.

    Chief

    Judge,

    Decided: September 2, 2009

    and

    GREGORY

    and

    SHEDD,

    Circuit

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Demetrius Lydell Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Demetrius Lydell Bryant seeks to appeal the district
    courts orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West
    Supp. 2009) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.
    The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues a certificate of appealability.
    (2006).

    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.


    28

    U.S.C.

    standard

    2253(c)(2)

    by

    (2006).

    demonstrating

    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    satisfies

    jurists

    this

    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).

    conclude

    that

    We

    have

    Bryant

    independently
    has

    not

    reviewed

    made

    the

    the

    record

    requisite

    and

    showing.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss


    the appeal.
    dispense

    with

    We deny Bryants motion to stay the appeal.


    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    We

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like