Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. James Fondren, JR., 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of United States v. James Wilbur Fondren, Jr. denying Fondren's request for a certificate of appealability. The court dismissed Fondren's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Fondren did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-05-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7606

    Original Title

    United States v. James Fondren, Jr., 4th Cir. (2015)

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of United States v. James Wilbur Fondren, Jr. denying Fondren's request for a certificate of appealability. The court dismissed Fondren's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Fondren did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. James Fondren, JR., 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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of United States v. James Wilbur Fondren, Jr. denying Fondren's request for a certificate of appealability. The court dismissed Fondren's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Fondren did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7606

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JAMES WILBUR FONDREN, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Claude M. Hilton, Senior
    District Judge. (1:09-cr-00263-CMH-1; 1:12-cv-01076-CMH)

    Submitted:

    April 28, 2015

    Decided:

    May 1, 2015

    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James Wilbur Fondren, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stacy M. Chaffin,


    Special
    Assistant
    United
    States
    Attorney,
    William
    Neil
    Hammerstrom, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, James Philip
    Gillis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    James Wilbur Fondren, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
    courts

    order

    motion.

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

    judge

    issues

    denying

    relief

    certificate

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

    absent

    on

    of

    28

    U.S.C.

    2255

    appealability.

    28

    (2012)

    U.S.C.

    A certificate of appealability will not

    substantial

    constitutional right.

    his

    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 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
    Fondren 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