Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Sheppard, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Jerry Wayne Sheppard's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as successive. The court determined that Sheppard did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied Sheppard's request for a certificate of appealability, dismissed his appeal, and denied his motion for abeyance.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-05-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6139

    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 Jerry Wayne Sheppard's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as successive. The court determined that Sheppard did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied Sheppard's request for a certificate of appealability, dismissed his appeal, and denied his motion for abeyance.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Sheppard, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Jerry Wayne Sheppard's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as successive. The court determined that Sheppard did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied Sheppard's request for a certificate of appealability, dismissed his appeal, and denied his motion for abeyance.

    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. 05-6139

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JERRY WAYNE SHEPPARD,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-94-122; CA-98-588)

    Submitted:

    May 19, 2005

    Decided:

    May 26, 2005

    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jerry Wayne Sheppard, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,


    Christine Witcover Dean, Jane J. Jackson, Anne Margaret Hayes,
    Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Jerry Wayne Sheppard seeks to appeal the district courts
    order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) as
    successive.
    or

    judge

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

    issues

    certificate

    of

    appealability.

    28

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue


    absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
    right.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000).

    A prisoner satisfies this

    standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that


    his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
    wrong.

    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
    676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have independently reviewed the

    record and conclude that Sheppard has not made the requisite
    showing.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability,

    dismiss the appeal, and deny Sheppards motion for abeyance.

    We

    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like