Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Evans, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. It discusses how Julius Larosa Evans sought to appeal a district court order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court notes that the district court order can only be appealed if a certificate of appealability is issued. However, the appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined that Evans did not make the requisite showing to deserve a certificate of appealability. As a result, the appeals court denied the certificate, denied Evans permission to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-07-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6021

    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. It discusses how Julius Larosa Evans sought to appeal a district court order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court notes that the district court order can only be appealed if a certificate of appealability is issued. However, the appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined that Evans did not make the requisite showing to deserve a certificate of appealability. As a result, the appeals court denied the certificate, denied Evans permission to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Evans, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. It discusses how Julius Larosa Evans sought to appeal a district court order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court notes that the district court order can only be appealed if a certificate of appealability is issued. However, the appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined that Evans did not make the requisite showing to deserve a certificate of appealability. As a result, the appeals court denied the certificate, denied Evans permission to proceed in forma pauperis, 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. 07-6021

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JULIUS LAROSA EVANS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (1:96-cr-00222-JAB; 1:06-cv-00118-JAB)

    Submitted: July 19, 2007

    Decided:

    July 24, 2007

    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Julius Larosa Evans, Appellant Pro Se.


    Angela Hewlett Miller,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Julius Larosa Evans seeks to appeal the district courts
    order and judgment accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
    judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion.
    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues a certificate of appealability.
    (2000).

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)

    A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


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

    that

    28

    A prisoner satisfies this standard by

    reasonable

    jurists

    would

    find

    that

    any

    assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is


    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.

    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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have

    independently reviewed the record and conclude Evans has not made
    the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

    appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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