Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Dodson, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Bernard Lee Dodson, Sr.'s appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Dodson did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, Dodson did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or that its procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Dodson's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-11-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-7164

    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 Bernard Lee Dodson, Sr.'s appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Dodson did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, Dodson did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or that its procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Dodson's appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Dodson, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Bernard Lee Dodson, Sr.'s appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Dodson did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, Dodson did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or that its procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Dodson's appeal.

    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. 06-7164

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    BERNARD LEE DODSON, SR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (3:02-cr-00257-JRS; 3:05-cv-00263-JRS)
    Submitted:

    November 15, 2006

    Decided:

    November 21, 2006

    Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Bernard Lee Dodson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert E. Trono,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Bernard Lee Dodson, Sr., seeks to appeal the district
    courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion.
    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues a certificate of appealability.
    (2000).

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

    A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000).

    28

    A prisoner satisfies this standard by

    demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district


    courts assessment of his constitutional claims 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have independently

    reviewed the record and conclude that Dodson has not made the
    requisite

    showing.

    Accordingly,

    we

    appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    deny

    certificate

    of

    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