Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Anthony Edward Zellner sought to appeal the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of judgment in his habeas corpus proceeding. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, as an appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas case without a certificate of appealability. The Court determined that Zellner had not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, and therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-07-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-6835

    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 summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Anthony Edward Zellner sought to appeal the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of judgment in his habeas corpus proceeding. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, as an appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas case without a certificate of appealability. The Court determined that Zellner had not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, and therefore denied 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
    1 views3 pages

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Anthony Edward Zellner sought to appeal the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of judgment in his habeas corpus proceeding. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, as an appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas case without a certificate of appealability. The Court determined that Zellner had not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, and therefore denied 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 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-6835

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ANTHONY EDWARD ZELLNER,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (CR-99-164; CA-01-311-2)

    Submitted:

    June 23, 2004

    Decided:

    July 9, 2004

    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Anthony Edward Zellner, Appellant Pro Se.


    Laura P. Tayman,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony Edward Zellner seeks to appeal the district
    courts denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider
    judgment.

    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).

    The denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is the final order in a habeas


    proceeding and thus requires a certificate of appealability for
    appeal.

    Reid v. Angelone,

    F.3d

    , 2004 WL 1119646, at

    *4 (4th Cir. May 19, 2004) (No. 03-6146).

    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 Zellner has not made the requisite showing.

    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 the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    - 2 -

    DISMISSED

    - 3 -

    You might also like