Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    United States v. Samuels, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Reynold George Samuels, Jr.'s appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Samuels did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Specifically, the court found that reasonable jurists would not debate that the district court's assessment of Samuels' constitutional claims was correct. As a result, the court denied Samuels' request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal. The court also denied Samuels' motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Samuels, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    22 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Reynold George Samuels, Jr.'s appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Samuels did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Specifically, the court found that reasonable jurists would not debate that the district court's assessment of Samuels' constitutional claims was correct. As a result, the court denied Samuels' request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal. The court also denied Samuels' motion for appointment of counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-04-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-7636

    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 Reynold George Samuels, Jr.'s appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Samuels did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Specifically, the court found that reasonable jurists would not debate that the district court's assessment of Samuels' constitutional claims was correct. As a result, the court denied Samuels' request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal. The court also denied Samuels' motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Samuels, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Reynold George Samuels, Jr.'s appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Samuels did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Specifically, the court found that reasonable jurists would not debate that the district court's assessment of Samuels' constitutional claims was correct. As a result, the court denied Samuels' request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal. The court also denied Samuels' motion for appointment of counsel.

    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. 10-7636

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    REYNOLD GEORGE SAMUELS, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.
    Norman K. Moon,
    Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00005-nkm-mfu-1; 3:09-cv-80183nkm)

    Submitted:

    March 31, 2011

    Decided:

    April 6, 2011

    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Dana Roger Cormier, DANA R. CORMIER, PLC, Staunton, Virginia,


    for Appellant. Ronald Mitchell Huber, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:

    district

    Reynold

    George

    courts

    order

    Samuels,
    accepting

    Jr.,
    the

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    recommendation

    of

    the
    the

    magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255


    (West Supp. 2010) motion.

    The order is not appealable unless a

    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.


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

    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) (2006).

    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

    Cockrell,

    (2000);

    (2003).

    see

    Miller-El

    v.

    537

    U.S.

    322,

    336-38

    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.
    529 U.S. at 484-85.

    Slack,

    We have independently reviewed the record

    and conclude that Samuels has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
    the appeal.

    We deny Samuels motion for appointment of counsel.

    We

    with

    dispense

    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

    You might also like