Filed: Jun. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 24, 2014
Summary: OPININ and ORDER CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE, Senior District Judge. Defendant, proceeding pro se, seeks relief in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. Defendant raises a single claim, arguing that he is entitled to relief "in light of the clarification of law issued by the Supreme Court" in Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013). Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pet. at 1, ECF No. 93. The Government filed a motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison,
Summary: OPININ and ORDER CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE, Senior District Judge. Defendant, proceeding pro se, seeks relief in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. Defendant raises a single claim, arguing that he is entitled to relief "in light of the clarification of law issued by the Supreme Court" in Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013). Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pet. at 1, ECF No. 93. The Government filed a motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 5..
More
OPININ and ORDER
CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE, Senior District Judge.
Defendant, proceeding pro se, seeks relief in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant raises a single claim, arguing that he is entitled to relief "in light of the clarification of law issued by the Supreme Court" in Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013). Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pet. at 1, ECF No. 93. The Government filed a motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the court advised Defendant of the summary judgment procedure and the consequences if he failed to respond to the Government's motion. Defendant responded to the Government's motion and this matter is ripe for consideration.
The court has reviewed the complete record in this case. For the reasons stated in the Government's response, which this court finds to be correct and adopts as its findings, the court grants the Government's motion for summary judgment and dismisses Defendant's motion for relief with prejudice.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The governing law provides that:
(c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(c)(3) The certificate of appealability . . . shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find this court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In this case, the legal standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability has not been met. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
