Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. McQueen, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views4 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Anthony McQueen's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration. The court determined that McQueen did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As a result, the court denied McQueen's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-02-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-7810

    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 dismissed Anthony McQueen's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration. The court determined that McQueen did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As a result, the court denied McQueen's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views4 pages

    United States v. McQueen, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Anthony McQueen's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration. The court determined that McQueen did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As a result, the court denied McQueen's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-7810

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ANTHONY MCQUEEN,
    Defendant Appellant.

    No. 09-8143

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ANTHONY MCQUEEN,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Claude M. Hilton, Senior
    District Judge. (1:04-cr-00257-CMH-1; 1:09-cv-00242-CMH)

    Submitted:

    February 18, 2010

    Decided:

    February 24, 2010

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Anthony McQueen, Appellant Pro Se. Michelle C. Brice, OFFICE OF


    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony McQueen seeks to appeal the district courts
    orders denying

    relief

    2009)

    and

    motion

    reconsideration.
    justice

    or

    on

    his

    Fed.

    R.

    issue

    judge

    absent

    constitutional
    prisoner

    issues

    right.

    jurists

    constitutional

    Civ.

    P.

    certificate

    2255

    (West

    60(b)

    motion

    Supp.
    for

    28

    this
    would

    claims

    by

    of

    appealability.

    28

    A certificate of appealability will

    substantial

    satisfies

    reasonable

    U.S.C.A.

    The orders are not appealable unless a circuit

    U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006).


    not

    28

    showing

    U.S.C.

    the

    the

    2253(c)(2)

    standard
    find

    of

    that

    district

    by

    denial
    (2006).

    demonstrating

    any

    assessment

    court

    is

    of

    a
    A

    that

    of

    debatable

    the
    or

    wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district


    court is likewise debatable.

    Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

    322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
    Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have

    independently reviewed the record and conclude that McQueen has


    not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we deny McQueens

    motion and supplemental motion to place No. 09-7810 in abeyance


    as moot, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the
    appeal.
    legal

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like