Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Flood, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Darryl Flood's request for a certificate of appealability regarding the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Flood did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. As such, the court dismissed Flood's appeal. The court also denied Flood's motion to hold the appeal in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's decisions in two cases.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-12-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7128

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Darryl Flood's request for a certificate of appealability regarding the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Flood did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. As such, the court dismissed Flood's appeal. The court also denied Flood's motion to hold the appeal in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's decisions in two cases.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views2 pages

    United States v. Flood, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Darryl Flood's request for a certificate of appealability regarding the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Flood did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. As such, the court dismissed Flood's appeal. The court also denied Flood's motion to hold the appeal in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's decisions in two cases.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-7128

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DARRYL JAMES FLOOD,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
    Judge. (CR-02-413; CA-03-1475)

    Submitted:

    December 9, 2004

    Decided:

    December 15, 2004

    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Darryl James Flood, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Joseph Rossi, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Darryl James Flood seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255
    (2000).
    judge

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or


    issues

    certificate

    of

    appealability.

    28

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).

    A prisoner satisfies this

    standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that


    his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
    wrong.

    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). We have independently reviewed the record and
    conclude

    that

    Flood

    has

    not

    made

    the

    requisite

    showing.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the


    appeal.

    We deny Floods motion to hold this appeal in abeyance for

    two cases in which the Supreme Court has granted certiorari.

    See

    United States v. Booker, __U.S.__, 125 S. Ct. 11 (U.S. Aug. 2,


    2004) (No. 04-104); United States v. Fanfan, __U.S.__, 125 S. Ct.
    12 (U.S. Aug. 2, 2004) (No. 04-105).

    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
    - 2 -

    You might also like