Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Barry Miller, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Barry Lee Miller's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Miller did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Specifically, he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-07-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-6424

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Barry Lee Miller's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Miller did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Specifically, he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Barry Miller, 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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Barry Lee Miller's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Miller did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Specifically, he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed 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. 15-6424

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    BARRY LEE MILLER,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (5:11-cr-00229-F-1; 5:13-cv-00513-F)

    Submitted:

    July 23, 2015

    Decided:

    July 27, 2015

    Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Barry Lee Miller, Appellant Pro Se.


    Jennifer P. May-Parker,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Barry Lee Miller seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012) motion.

    The order

    is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a


    certificate of appealability.

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

    A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
    2253(c)(2) (2012).

    28 U.S.C.

    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 (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 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
    Miller has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we deny

    a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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