Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Patrick Harrington's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal a § 2255 denial, and the court determined that Harrington did not make the requisite substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. Specifically, the court found that reasonable jurists would not debate that Harrington's constitutional claims lacked merit or that any procedural rulings of the district court were incorrect. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Harrington's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-05-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-6398

    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 Patrick Harrington's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal a § 2255 denial, and the court determined that Harrington did not make the requisite substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. Specifically, the court found that reasonable jurists would not debate that Harrington's constitutional claims lacked merit or that any procedural rulings of the district court were incorrect. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Harrington's appeal.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Patrick Harrington's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal a § 2255 denial, and the court determined that Harrington did not make the requisite substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. Specifically, the court found that reasonable jurists would not debate that Harrington's constitutional claims lacked merit or that any procedural rulings of the district court were incorrect. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Harrington'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. 04-6398

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    PATRICK HARRINGTON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
    Judge. (CR-02-47; CA-03-50-2)

    Submitted: May 13, 2004

    Decided:

    May 20, 2004

    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Richard George Brydges, BRYDGES, MAHAN, OBRIEN & FRUCCI, Virginia


    Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Patrick Harrington seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255
    (2000).

    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

    2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a


    certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    demonstrating
    constitutional

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    claims

    are

    satisfies

    jurists

    debatable

    and

    would
    that

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find
    any

    that

    by
    his

    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 Harrington has not made the requisite
    showing.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

    dismiss the appeal. We deny Harringtons motion for appointment of


    counsel.

    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