Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Fields, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    Richard Toland Fields appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because Fields did not obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. A certificate will not issue unless the applicant makes a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Fields did not make the requisite showing. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-09-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-7048

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Richard Toland Fields appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because Fields did not obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. A certificate will not issue unless the applicant makes a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Fields did not make the requisite 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
    10 views2 pages

    United States v. Fields, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Richard Toland Fields appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because Fields did not obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. A certificate will not issue unless the applicant makes a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Fields did not make the requisite 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. 08-7048

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    RICHARD TOLAND FIELDS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
    (7:07-cv-00492-gec-mfu; 5:04-cr-30018-gec-bwc-6)

    Submitted:

    September 16, 2008

    Decided:

    September 24, 2008

    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Richard Toland Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Ray Burton Fitzgerald,


    Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville,
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Richard

    Toland

    Fields

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp.


    2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
    or

    judge

    issues

    certificate

    of

    appealability.

    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.

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

    A prisoner satisfies this

    standard by demonstrating that 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 Fields 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

    You might also like