Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Gleaton, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Tyrone Gleaton's appeal of a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court concludes that Gleaton has not shown that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court also finds that Gleaton's claim of error under Blakely v. Washington is not available for post-conviction relief since his conviction was final before Blakely was decided. Therefore, the court denies Gleaton's request for a certificate of appealability and dismisses his appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-12-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7728

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Tyrone Gleaton's appeal of a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court concludes that Gleaton has not shown that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court also finds that Gleaton's claim of error under Blakely v. Washington is not available for post-conviction relief since his conviction was final before Blakely was decided. Therefore, the court denies Gleaton's request for a certificate of appealability and dismisses his appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views3 pages

    United States v. Gleaton, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Tyrone Gleaton's appeal of a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court concludes that Gleaton has not shown that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court also finds that Gleaton's claim of error under Blakely v. Washington is not available for post-conviction relief since his conviction was final before Blakely was decided. Therefore, the court denies Gleaton's request for a certificate of appealability and dismisses his appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-7728

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TYRONE GLEATON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.
    (CR-01-871; CA-04-1537)

    Submitted:

    November 22, 2005

    Decided:

    December 1, 2005

    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Tyrone Gleaton, Appellant Pro Se.


    William Kenneth Witherspoon,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Tyrone Gleaton, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255
    (2000) motion.

    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

    a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues


    a certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    (2000).

    prisoner

    satisfies

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    by

    demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district


    courts assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 Gleaton has not made the
    requisite showing.
    Gleatons claim of error under Blakely v. Washington, 542
    U.S. 296 (2004), is unavailing because neither Blakely nor United
    States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005) (holding that Blakely
    applies to federal sentencing guidelines), is available for postconviction relief for a federal prisoner whose conviction was final
    before either of those cases was decided. United States v. Morris,
    ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 2950 (4th Cir. Nov. 7, 2005).

    - 2 -

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and


    dismiss the appeal.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 3 -

    You might also like