Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Kevin Cox's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In a per curiam opinion, the circuit court independently reviewed the record and found that Cox failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court also declined to consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, the circuit court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-03-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7458

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Kevin Cox's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In a per curiam opinion, the circuit court independently reviewed the record and found that Cox failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court also declined to consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, the circuit 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
    3 views2 pages

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Kevin Cox's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In a per curiam opinion, the circuit court independently reviewed the record and found that Cox failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court also declined to consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, the circuit 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 02-7458

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    KEVIN ADRIAN
    Fatboy,

    COX,

    a/k/a

    Roundman,

    a/k/a
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR-94454-PJM, CA-00-2984-PJM)

    Submitted:

    March 6, 2003

    Decided:

    March 13, 2003

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Kevin Cox, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United


    States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Kevin Adrian Cox seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000).
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cox has
    not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
    right.

    See Miller-El v. Cockrell,

    U.S.

    , 2003 WL 431659

    (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662), at *10. In addition, we decline


    to address issues raised for the first time on appeal.
    United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).

    See Muth v.

    Accordingly, we

    deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28


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

    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