Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    1) Gilbert Melvin sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief and requested appointment of counsel. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion, which will not be issued unless the petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Melvin did not make the requisite showing. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability, denied the request for appointment of counsel, and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-07-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-6833

    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) Gilbert Melvin sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief and requested appointment of counsel. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion, which will not be issued unless the petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Melvin did not make the requisite showing. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability, denied the request for appointment of counsel, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Gilbert Melvin sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief and requested appointment of counsel. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion, which will not be issued unless the petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Melvin did not make the requisite showing. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability, denied the request for appointment of counsel, 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. 06-6833

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    GILBERT DEVON MELVIN, a/k/a G-Boy,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (5:98-cr-00037-F-14)

    Submitted: June 6, 2007

    Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge,


    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Decided:

    NIEMEYER,

    Circuit

    July 6, 2007

    Judge,

    and

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Gilbert Devon Melvin, Appellant Pro Se.


    John Howarth Bennett,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Gilbert Melvin seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion and requests
    appointment of counsel.

    The order is not appealable unless a

    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28


    U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).
    not

    issue

    absent

    constitutional right.

    A certificate of appealability will

    substantial

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

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

    of

    A prisoner

    satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 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, 68384 (4th Cir. 2001).
    conclude

    that

    We have independently reviewed the record and

    Melvin

    has

    not

    made

    the

    requisite

    showing.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Melvins


    motion for appointment of counsel, 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