Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Charles Birdsong v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Charles Birdsong's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his Virginia state convictions for aggravated malicious wounding and use of a firearm. The court issued an unpublished opinion stating that a certificate of appealability is required but would not be issued in this case because Birdsong failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that the requisite showing had not been made.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-03-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7590

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Charles Birdsong's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his Virginia state convictions for aggravated malicious wounding and use of a firearm. The court issued an unpublished opinion stating that a certificate of appealability is required but would not be issued in this case because Birdsong failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that the requisite showing had not been made.

    Copyright:

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

    Charles Birdsong v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Charles Birdsong's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his Virginia state convictions for aggravated malicious wounding and use of a firearm. The court issued an unpublished opinion stating that a certificate of appealability is required but would not be issued in this case because Birdsong failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that the requisite showing had not been made.

    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. 14-7590

    CHARLES A. BIRDSONG,
    Petitioner Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD CLARKE, Dir. of D.O.C.,
    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-00786-JRS)

    Submitted:

    March 12, 2015

    Decided:

    March 17, 2015

    Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles A. Birdsong, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles A. Birdsong seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2012) petition
    challenging

    his

    Virginia

    state

    convictions

    malicious wounding and use of a firearm.


    appealable

    unless

    circuit

    certificate of appealability.
    A

    certificate

    of

    justice

    for

    aggravated

    The order is not

    or

    judge

    issues

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

    appealability

    will

    not

    issue

    absent

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


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

    on

    the

    demonstrating
    district

    merits,
    that

    courts

    debatable

    or

    prisoner

    reasonable

    assessment

    wrong.

    When the district court denies

    Slack

    satisfies

    jurists

    this

    would

    of

    the

    v.

    McDaniel,

    standard

    find

    constitutional
    529

    U.S.

    by

    that

    the

    claims

    is

    473,

    484

    (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).


    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
    Birdsong has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we

    deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in


    forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
    2

    We dispense with oral

    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


    presented in the materials before this court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like