Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Moorthy Ram, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Moorthy Srinivasan Ram of the district court's denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Ram did not make the requisite showing to obtain 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, denied Ram's motion to appoint counsel, and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-07-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-6859

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Moorthy Srinivasan Ram of the district court's denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Ram did not make the requisite showing to obtain 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, denied Ram's motion to appoint counsel, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views2 pages

    United States v. Moorthy Ram, 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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Moorthy Srinivasan Ram of the district court's denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Ram did not make the requisite showing to obtain 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, denied Ram's motion to appoint counsel, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-6859

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    MOORTHY SRINIVASAN RAM,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Henry E. Hudson, District
    Judge. (3:09-cr-00020-HEH-RCY-1; 3:15-cv-00284-HEH-RCY)

    Submitted:

    July 23, 2015

    Decided:

    July 28, 2015

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


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Moorthy Srinivasan Ram, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ronald Gill,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Moorthy Srinivasan Ram 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
    Ram has not made the requisite showing.
    certificate

    of

    appealability,

    deny

    counsel, and dismiss the appeal.

    Accordingly, we deny a

    Rams

    motion

    to

    appoint

    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
    2

    You might also like