Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. LITTLE, 15-6822. (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: infco20151019111 Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 19, 2015
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Cedric Monte Little seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his motions seeking relief from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012) motion and reconsideration. The orders is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the d
More

UNPUBLISHED

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Cedric Monte Little seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his motions seeking relief from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and reconsideration. The orders is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's 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). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Little 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer