Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Arora, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Vasu D. Arora appealed the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Arora did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability. Specifically, he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied Arora's request for a certificate of appealability, dismissed his appeal, and also denied his petition for mandamus relief and motion for production of documents. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-10-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-6666

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Vasu D. Arora appealed the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Arora did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability. Specifically, he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied Arora's request for a certificate of appealability, dismissed his appeal, and also denied his petition for mandamus relief and motion for production of documents. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Arora, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Vasu D. Arora appealed the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Arora did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability. Specifically, he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied Arora's request for a certificate of appealability, dismissed his appeal, and also denied his petition for mandamus relief and motion for production of documents. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal

    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. 03-6666

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    VASU D. ARORA,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
    Judge. (CR-98-72-1, CA-01-305-7)

    Submitted:

    September 30, 2003

    Decided:

    October 7, 2003

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Vasu D. Arora, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, OFFICE OF


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

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Vasu D. Arora seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000).
    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).
    demonstrating
    constitutional

    that

    A prisoner satisfies this standard by

    reasonable

    claims

    are

    28

    jurists

    debatable

    would

    and

    that

    find
    any

    that

    his

    dispositive

    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or


    wrong.

    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

    , 123 S. Ct.

    1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
    Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.
    941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
    that Arora has not made the requisite showing.
    deny

    certificate

    of

    appealability

    and

    Accordingly, we

    dismiss

    the

    appeal.

    Additionally, we deny Aroras petition for mandamus relief, and


    deny his motion for production of documents. 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

    You might also like