Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Gideon Melvin, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views3 pages
    Gideon X. Melvin appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Melvin did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. Specifically, the court held that the cases Melvin relied on did not apply retroactively to his case on collateral review. As a result, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Melvin's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-01-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-7489

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Gideon X. Melvin appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Melvin did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. Specifically, the court held that the cases Melvin relied on did not apply retroactively to his case on collateral review. As a result, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Melvin's appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Gideon Melvin, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Gideon X. Melvin appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Melvin did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. Specifically, the court held that the cases Melvin relied on did not apply retroactively to his case on collateral review. As a result, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Melvin's 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 12-7489

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    GIDEON X. MELVIN,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (7:00-cr-00110-F-1; 7:12-cv-00149-F)

    Submitted:

    January 22, 2013

    Decided: January 24, 2013

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Gideon X. Melvin, Appellant Pro Se.


    Jennifer P. May-Parker,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Gideon X. Melvin seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2012)
    motion.
    judge

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or


    issues

    certificate

    2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
    issue

    absent

    of

    28

    U.S.C.

    A certificate of appealability will not

    substantial

    constitutional right.

    appealability.

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).

    of

    When the

    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies


    this

    standard

    by

    demonstrating

    that

    reasonable

    jurists

    would

    find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional


    claims is debatable or wrong.

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

    484

    Cockrell,

    (2000);

    (2003).

    see

    Miller-El

    v.

    537

    U.S.

    322,

    336-38

    When the district court denies relief on procedural

    grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive


    procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a
    debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    Slack,

    529 U.S. at 484-85.


    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
    that Melvin has not made the requisite showing.

    See United

    States v. Powell, 649 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2012) (holding that
    Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010), and United
    States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237, 241-45 (4th Cir. 2011), do not
    apply

    retroactively

    to

    cases
    2

    on

    collateral

    review).

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss


    the appeal.

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts

    and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials


    before

    this

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like