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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    United States v. Frantz Michel, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Frantz Michel sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Michel did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. To appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion, the appellant must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined Michel did not meet this standard, so it denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Frantz Michel, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    24 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Frantz Michel sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Michel did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. To appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion, the appellant must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined Michel did not meet this standard, so it denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-08-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-6307

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Frantz Michel sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Michel did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. To appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion, the appellant must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined Michel did not meet this standard, so it denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Frantz Michel, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Frantz Michel sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Michel did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. To appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion, the appellant must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined Michel did not meet this standard, so it denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without 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. 11-6307

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    FRANTZ MICHEL, a/k/a John Doe, a/k/a Freon,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Henry E. Hudson, District
    Judge. (3:00-cr-00141-HEH-4)

    Submitted:

    July 28, 2011

    Decided:

    August 2, 2011

    Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Dawn Elise Murphy-Johnson, Barry Joel Pollack, MILLER &


    CHEVALIER, CHARTERED, Washington, DC, for Appellant.
    John
    Staige Davis, V, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
    Virginia; Randy Carl Stoker, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Frantz

    Michel

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts

    order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2011)


    motion.
    judge

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or


    issues

    certificate

    2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
    issue

    absent

    of

    28

    U.S.C.

    A certificate of appealability will not

    substantial

    constitutional right.

    appealability.

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).

    of

    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 Michel 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

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like