Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Arthur Vick, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Arthur Tracy Vick's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Vick did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Vick did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that the district court's procedural ruling was debatable and his motion stated a debatable constitutional claim. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-08-31 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-6457

    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 Arthur Tracy Vick's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Vick did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Vick did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that the district court's procedural ruling was debatable and his motion stated a debatable constitutional claim. 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
    10 views2 pages

    United States v. Arthur Vick, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Arthur Tracy Vick's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Vick did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Vick did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that the district court's procedural ruling was debatable and his motion stated a debatable constitutional claim. 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 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-6457

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ARTHUR TRACY VICK,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    W. Earl Britt, Senior
    District Judge. (5:11-cr-00352-BR-1; 5:14-cv-00359-BR)

    Submitted:

    February 25, 2016

    Decided:

    March 2, 2016

    Before GREGORY, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Arthur Tracy Vick, 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:
    Arthur Tracy Vick 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
    Vick 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
    2

    You might also like