Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Billings, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Keith Darnell Billings, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Billings' appeal, finding that he did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify issuing a certificate of appealability. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before it.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-07-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-6579

    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 Keith Darnell Billings, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Billings' appeal, finding that he did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify issuing a certificate of appealability. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before it.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Billings, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Keith Darnell Billings, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Billings' appeal, finding that he did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify issuing a certificate of appealability. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before it.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 04-6579

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Petitioner - Appellee,
    versus
    KEITH DARNELL BILLINGS,
    Respondent - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.
    C. Weston Houck, Senior District
    Judge. (CR-99-249-4-2; CA-01-2315-4-12)

    Submitted:

    July 15, 2004

    Decided:

    July 22, 2004

    Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Keith Darnell Billings, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker


    Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Keith Darnell Billings, a federal prisoner, seeks to
    appeal the district courts order denying relief on his 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 absent a substantial
    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    (2000).

    prisoner

    satisfies

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    by

    demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his


    constitutional

    claims

    are

    debatable

    and

    that

    any

    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 Billings has not made the requisite
    showing.

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like