Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Smith, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Alex Lamont Smith, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Smith did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The appeals court independently reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's reasons for denying Smith's motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-02-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7415

    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 a court case in which Alex Lamont Smith, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Smith did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The appeals court independently reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's reasons for denying Smith's motion.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Smith, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Alex Lamont Smith, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Smith did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The appeals court independently reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's reasons for denying Smith's motion.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 02-7415

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ALEX LAMONT SMITH,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CR-96-14, CA-99-49)

    Submitted:

    January 28, 2003

    Decided:

    February 20, 2003

    Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Alex Lamont Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Donald Warner, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Alex Lamont Smith, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district courts order accepting in part and rejecting in part the
    recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on
    Smiths 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. 28
    U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not
    issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent
    a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28
    U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000); see Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th
    Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001).

    We have independently

    reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the
    district court that Smith has not made the requisite showing.

    See

    United States v. Smith, Nos. CR-96-14, CA-99-49 (N.D.W. Va. Aug.


    13, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
    dismiss the appeal.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like