Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Asmar Newsome, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Asmar Newsome's appeal of the district court's ruling that his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was successive. The court issued an unpublished, per curiam opinion stating that unpublished opinions are not binding precedent. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Newsome failed to make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, denying the certificate and dismissing the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-03-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7744

    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 Asmar Newsome's appeal of the district court's ruling that his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was successive. The court issued an unpublished, per curiam opinion stating that unpublished opinions are not binding precedent. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Newsome failed to make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, denying the certificate and dismissing the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Asmar Newsome, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Asmar Newsome's appeal of the district court's ruling that his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was successive. The court issued an unpublished, per curiam opinion stating that unpublished opinions are not binding precedent. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Newsome failed to make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, denying the certificate and dismissing the appeal.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7744

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ASMAR NAFIS NEWSOME, a/k/a Shorty,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
    District Judge. (4:10-cr-00053-RGD-FBS-1; 4:14-cv-00129-RGD)

    Submitted:

    March 17, 2015

    Decided:

    March 20, 2015

    Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Asmar Nafis Newsome, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Asmar Nafis Newsome seeks to appeal the district courts
    order

    dismissing

    successive.
    justice

    or

    his

    28

    The

    order

    is

    judge

    issues

    U.S.C.
    not

    2255

    appealable

    certificate

    U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

    (2012)

    of

    motion

    unless

    as

    circuit

    appealability.

    28

    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) (2012).

    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 motion 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
    Newsome has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we

    deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.


    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    We

    legal

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like