Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Juanita Lawson, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Juanita Lawson's appeal of the district court's denial of her successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate her conviction. The district court construed Lawson's motion as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion and dismissed it on that basis. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Lawson failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as required for a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-11-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-7039

    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 Juanita Lawson's appeal of the district court's denial of her successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate her conviction. The district court construed Lawson's motion as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion and dismissed it on that basis. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Lawson failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as required for a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, 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
    4 views3 pages

    United States v. Juanita Lawson, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Juanita Lawson's appeal of the district court's denial of her successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate her conviction. The district court construed Lawson's motion as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion and dismissed it on that basis. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Lawson failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as required for a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, 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. 12-7039

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JUANITA E. LAWSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.
    Arenda Wright Allen,
    District Judge. (4:99-cr-00055-AWA-6)

    Submitted:

    November 2, 2012

    Decided:

    November 7, 2012

    Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Juanita E. Lawson, Appellant Pro Se.


    Timothy Richard Murphy,
    Special
    Assistant
    United
    States
    Attorney,
    Newport
    News,
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Juanita E. Lawson seeks to appeal the district courts
    order

    construing

    successive

    28

    her

    motion

    U.S.C.A.

    2255

    dismissing it on that basis.


    a

    circuit

    justice

    appealability.

    to

    or

    dismiss
    (West

    the

    Supp.

    indictment
    2012)

    as

    motion

    and

    The order is not appealable unless


    judge

    issues

    certificate

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

    of

    A certificate

    of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of


    the denial of a constitutional right.
    (2006).

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2)

    When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

    prisoner

    satisfies

    this

    jurists

    would

    reasonable

    standard
    find

    by

    that

    demonstrating

    the

    district

    that

    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).
    denies

    relief

    demonstrate

    both

    on

    procedural

    that

    the

    When the district court

    grounds,

    dispositive

    the

    prisoner

    procedural

    ruling

    must
    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 Lawson has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we

    deny her motion for 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


    2

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like