Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Moxley, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Harvey Lee Moxley sought to appeal the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Moxley did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which requires demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that dispositive procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and concluded Moxley did not make this required showing.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-08-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6579

    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 Harvey Lee Moxley sought to appeal the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Moxley did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which requires demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that dispositive procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and concluded Moxley did not make this required showing.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Moxley, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Harvey Lee Moxley sought to appeal the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Moxley did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which requires demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that dispositive procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and concluded Moxley did not make this required showing.

    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. 05-6579

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    HARVEY LEE MOXLEY,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
    District Judge. (CR-98-68-V; CA-02-32)

    Submitted:

    August 18, 2005

    Decided:

    August 25, 2005

    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Harvey Lee Moxley, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Harvey Lee Moxley 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).

    certificate of appealability will not issue 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 that the district


    courts assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 Moxley has not made the
    requisite

    showing.

    Accordingly,

    we

    appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    deny

    certificate

    of

    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