Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Charles B. Mitchell sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined that Mitchell did not make the requisite substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. As a result, the appeals court denied Mitchell's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-02-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7434

    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 United States Court of Appeals case in which Charles B. Mitchell sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined that Mitchell did not make the requisite substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. As a result, the appeals court denied Mitchell's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Charles B. Mitchell sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined that Mitchell did not make the requisite substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. As a result, the appeals court denied Mitchell's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal without oral argument.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 03-7434

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CHARLES B. MITCHELL,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.
    (CR-00-14, CA-01-78)

    Submitted:

    January 30, 2004

    Decided:

    February 23, 2004

    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles B. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr.,


    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles B. Mitchell seeks to appeal the district courts
    order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge
    and 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)

    demonstrating
    constitutional

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    claims

    are

    satisfies

    jurists

    debatable

    this

    would

    and

    that

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find
    any

    that

    by
    his

    dispositive

    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or


    wrong.

    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).
    conclude

    that

    We have independently reviewed the record and

    Mitchell

    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