Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Clark Proctor Jr. sought to appeal the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Proctor did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. As a result, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Proctor's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-06-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7762

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Clark Proctor Jr. sought to appeal the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Proctor did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. As a result, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Proctor's appeal.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Clark Proctor Jr. sought to appeal the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Proctor did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. As a result, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Proctor's 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 03-7762

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CLARK PROCTOR, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
    Lacy H. Thornburg,
    District Judge. (CR-00-6; CA-03-105-1)

    Submitted:

    May 19, 2004

    Decided:

    June 1, 2004

    Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Clark Proctor, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, 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:
    Clark Proctor, Jr., seeks to appeal the district courts
    order summarily denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.
    2255 (2000).

    The order is not appealable 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
    absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
    right.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000).

    A prisoner satisfies this

    standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 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, 336-38 (2003);

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
    676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
    record

    and

    conclude

    that

    We have independently reviewed the


    Proctor

    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