Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Philip Ostrander v. Director, VA Dep't of Corrections, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Philip J. Ostrander's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as untimely. The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Ostrander did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed Ostrander's appeal. The Fourth Circuit also granted Ostrander's motion to amend his informal brief but found that oral arguments were not necessary.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-01-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-6939

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Philip J. Ostrander's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as untimely. The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Ostrander did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed Ostrander's appeal. The Fourth Circuit also granted Ostrander's motion to amend his informal brief but found that oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views3 pages

    Philip Ostrander v. Director, VA Dep't of Corrections, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Philip J. Ostrander's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as untimely. The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Ostrander did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed Ostrander's appeal. The Fourth Circuit also granted Ostrander's motion to amend his informal brief but found that oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-6939

    PHILIP J. OSTRANDER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    James R. Spencer, Senior
    District Judge. (3:13-cv-00634-JRS)

    Submitted:

    November 25, 2014

    Decided:

    January 15, 2015

    Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Philip J. Ostrander, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin,


    Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Philip

    J.

    Ostrander

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2012)


    petition.
    or

    judge

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice


    issues

    certificate

    2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
    issue

    absent

    appealability.

    28

    U.S.C.

    A certificate of appealability will not

    substantial

    constitutional right.

    of

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).

    of

    When the

    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies


    this

    standard

    by

    demonstrating

    that

    reasonable

    jurists

    would

    find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional


    claims is debatable or wrong.

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

    484

    Cockrell,

    (2000);

    (2003).

    see

    Miller-El

    v.

    537

    U.S.

    322,

    336-38

    When the district court denies relief on procedural

    grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive


    procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
    debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    Slack,

    529 U.S. at 484-85.


    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
    that Ostrander has not made the requisite showing.
    although

    we

    grant

    Ostranders

    motion

    to

    amend

    Accordingly,
    his

    informal

    brief, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the


    appeal.
    legal

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions

    are

    adequately
    2

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like