Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Coster, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Frederick Coster sought to appeal a district court order that construed his motion under 28 U.S.C. 2241 as a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Coster did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that its procedural rulings were debatable. As such, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Coster's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-10-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-7295

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Frederick Coster sought to appeal a district court order that construed his motion under 28 U.S.C. 2241 as a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Coster did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that its procedural rulings were debatable. As such, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Coster's appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Coster, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Frederick Coster sought to appeal a district court order that construed his motion under 28 U.S.C. 2241 as a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Coster did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that its procedural rulings were debatable. As such, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Coster's 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. 06-7295

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    FREDERICK G. COSTER,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    William M. Nickerson, Senior District
    Judge. (00-0406-WMN)

    Submitted: October 17, 2006

    Decided: October 24, 2006

    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Frederick G. Coster, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Clayton White,


    SILVERMAN, THOMPSON & WHITE, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Frederick G. Coster seeks to appeal the district courts
    order construing his 28 U.S.C. 2241 (2000) motion as a successive
    28 U.S.C. 2255 motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.
    The order is not appealable 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 absent a

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


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

    that

    28

    A prisoner satisfies this standard by

    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 Coster 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