MOHAMMED v. U.S., Crim (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Maryland
Number: infdco20150807996
Visitors: 11
Filed: Aug. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 05, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM JAMES K. BREDAR , District Judge . This Court previously denied Petitioner's motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. (ECF No. 211.) The Court further concludes that a certificate of appealability is unwarranted and shall not issue. A certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 , 484 (2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell,
Summary: MEMORANDUM JAMES K. BREDAR , District Judge . This Court previously denied Petitioner's motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. (ECF No. 211.) The Court further concludes that a certificate of appealability is unwarranted and shall not issue. A certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 , 484 (2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 5..
More
MEMORANDUM
JAMES K. BREDAR, District Judge.
This Court previously denied Petitioner's motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 211.) The Court further concludes that a certificate of appealability is unwarranted and shall not issue. A certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). In order to satisfy § 2253(c), a petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336-38 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Petitioner has not met this burden. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
Source: Leagle
