Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    1) Alohondra Rey Staton, a federal prisoner, sought to appeal a district court order that denied relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and denied his motions to amend his § 2255 motion and supplement the record. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal such an order, which will not issue unless a substantial denial of a constitutional right is shown. 3) The appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined that Staton did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-03-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7662

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Alohondra Rey Staton, a federal prisoner, sought to appeal a district court order that denied relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and denied his motions to amend his § 2255 motion and supplement the record. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal such an order, which will not issue unless a substantial denial of a constitutional right is shown. 3) The appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined that Staton did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Alohondra Rey Staton, a federal prisoner, sought to appeal a district court order that denied relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and denied his motions to amend his § 2255 motion and supplement the record. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal such an order, which will not issue unless a substantial denial of a constitutional right is shown. 3) The appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined that Staton did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the court 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. 04-7662

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ALOHONDRA REY STATON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Malcolm J. Howard,
    District Judge. (CR-00-54-H; CA-03-188-4-H)

    Submitted:

    February 24, 2005

    Decided:

    March 7, 2005

    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Alohondra Rey Staton, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Alohondra Rey Staton, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
    the district courts order denying relief on his motion filed under
    28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000), and denying his motions to amend his
    2255 motion and to supplement the record.

    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 the district courts assessment of his
    constitutional

    claims

    is

    debatable

    or

    wrong

    and

    that

    any

    dispositive procedural rulings by the district court also are


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

    We have independently

    reviewed the record and conclude that Staton 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