Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    United States v. Derek Richardson, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Derek Richardson's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and motion for reconsideration. The court concluded that Richardson did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's assessment or find the constitutional claims wrong. The court independently reviewed the record and dismissed the appeal, dispensing with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Derek Richardson, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Derek Richardson's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and motion for reconsideration. The court concluded that Richardson did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's assessment or find the constitutional claims wrong. The court independently reviewed the record and dismissed the appeal, dispensing with oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-06-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-6318

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Derek Richardson's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and motion for reconsideration. The court concluded that Richardson did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's assessment or find the constitutional claims wrong. The court independently reviewed the record and dismissed the appeal, dispensing with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    7 views3 pages

    United States v. Derek Richardson, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Derek Richardson's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and motion for reconsideration. The court concluded that Richardson did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's assessment or find the constitutional claims wrong. The court independently reviewed the record and dismissed the appeal, dispensing with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-6318

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DEREK RICHARDSON, a/k/a Weasel,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:10-cr-00152-BO-1; 5:12-cv-00595-BO)

    Submitted:

    June 24, 2014

    Before WILKINSON and


    Senior Circuit Judge.

    GREGORY,

    Decided:

    Circuit

    Judges,

    June 27, 2014

    and

    HAMILTON,

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Derek Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. William Glenn Perry, OFFICE


    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina; Seth
    Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Derek Richardson seeks to appeal the district courts
    orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012) motion and
    denying

    his

    appealable

    motion

    for

    unless

    reconsideration.
    circuit

    certificate of appealability.
    A

    certificate

    of

    justice

    The
    or

    orders
    judge

    are

    issues

    not
    a

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

    appealability

    will

    not

    issue

    absent

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).
    relief

    on

    the

    demonstrating
    district

    merits,
    that

    courts

    debatable

    or

    When the district court denies

    prisoner

    reasonable

    assessment

    wrong.

    Slack

    satisfies

    jurists

    this

    would

    of

    the

    v.

    McDaniel,

    standard

    find

    constitutional
    529

    U.S.

    by

    that

    the

    claims

    is

    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

    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    debatable

    Slack, 529 U.S.

    at 484-85.
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
    that

    Richardson

    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


    2

    before

    this

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like