Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Pierce v. Wright, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Mario Russell Pierce's appeal of a magistrate judge's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The court will not issue a certificate of appealability for claims dismissed on procedural grounds unless the petitioner can show that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid constitutional claim and whether the procedural ruling was correct. The court determined that Pierce did not make this requisite showing and therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-03-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7827

    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 Mario Russell Pierce's appeal of a magistrate judge's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The court will not issue a certificate of appealability for claims dismissed on procedural grounds unless the petitioner can show that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid constitutional claim and whether the procedural ruling was correct. The court determined that Pierce did not make this requisite showing and therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    Pierce v. Wright, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Mario Russell Pierce's appeal of a magistrate judge's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The court will not issue a certificate of appealability for claims dismissed on procedural grounds unless the petitioner can show that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid constitutional claim and whether the procedural ruling was correct. The court determined that Pierce did not make this requisite showing and therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    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. 03-7827

    MARIO RUSSELL PIERCE,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    E. E. WRIGHT, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    David G. Lowe, Magistrate
    Judge. (CA-03-23)

    Submitted:

    March 11, 2004

    Decided:

    March 18, 2004

    Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Mario Russell Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,


    III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Mario Russell Pierce appeals from the magistrate judges
    denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition.*

    An appeal may not

    be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless


    a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability.
    28

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1)(2000).

    This

    court

    will

    not

    issue

    certificate of appealability as to claims dismissed by a district


    court or magistrate judge on procedural grounds unless the movant
    can demonstrate both (1) that jurists of reason would find it
    debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial
    of a constitutional right and (2) that jurists of reason would
    find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its
    procedural ruling.

    Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.

    2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).


    We have reviewed the record and determine that Pierce has
    not made the requisite showing.
    U.S. 322, 336 (2003).

    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

    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 in the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate


    judge under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) (2001).
    - 2 -

    You might also like