Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Rhew v. Beck, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views3 pages
    This document summarizes an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding appeals filed by Don Rhew of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeals dismisses Rhew's appeals, finding that he failed to make a substantial showing that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-12-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6107

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding appeals filed by Don Rhew of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeals dismisses Rhew's appeals, finding that he failed to make a substantial showing that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views3 pages

    Rhew v. Beck, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding appeals filed by Don Rhew of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeals dismisses Rhew's appeals, finding that he failed to make a substantial showing that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-6107

    DON RHEW,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    THEODIS
    BECK,
    Secretary,
    Department of Corrections,

    North

    Carolina
    Respondent - Appellee.

    No. 05-6189

    DON RHEW,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    THEODIS BECK,
    Secretary,
    Department of Corrections,

    North

    Carolina
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
    Judge. (CA-04-340-1)

    Submitted:

    November 23, 2005

    Decided:

    December 13, 2005

    Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Don Rhew, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH
    CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Don Rhew seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254
    (2000).

    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

    habeas corpus 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 absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    demonstrating
    constitutional

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    claims

    are

    satisfies

    jurists

    debatable

    and

    would
    that

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find
    any

    that

    by
    his

    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 Rhew has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
    appeals.

    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

    - 3 -

    You might also like