Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    United States v. McLean, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from James Carter McLean of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion for post-conviction relief. The circuit court independently reviewed the record and determined that McLean did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's assessment or find that constitutional claims were wrongly decided or procedural rulings debatable. Therefore, the circuit court denied the certificate and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    United States v. McLean, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from James Carter McLean of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion for post-conviction relief. The circuit court independently reviewed the record and determined that McLean did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's assessment or find that constitutional claims were wrongly decided or procedural rulings debatable. Therefore, the circuit court denied the certificate and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-12-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-7867

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from James Carter McLean of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion for post-conviction relief. The circuit court independently reviewed the record and determined that McLean did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's assessment or find that constitutional claims were wrongly decided or procedural rulings debatable. Therefore, the circuit court denied the certificate and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. McLean, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from James Carter McLean of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion for post-conviction relief. The circuit court independently reviewed the record and determined that McLean did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's assessment or find that constitutional claims were wrongly decided or procedural rulings debatable. Therefore, the circuit court denied the certificate and dismissed the 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. 08-7867

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JAMES CARTER MCLEAN,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (5:08-cv-00267-F; 5:05-cr-00114-F-1)

    Submitted:

    December 16, 2008

    Decided:

    December 29, 2008

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James Carter McLean, Appellant Pro Se.


    Felice McConnell
    Corpening, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rudolf A.
    Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    James
    courts

    order

    motion.
    judge

    Carter
    denying

    relief

    seeks
    on

    to

    appeal

    28

    U.S.C.

    his

    the

    district

    2255

    (2000)

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or


    issues

    certificate

    2253(c)(1) (2000).
    issue

    McLean

    absent

    constitutional
    prisoner

    substantial

    right.

    jurists

    constitutional

    appealability.

    28

    U.S.C.

    A certificate of appealability will not

    satisfies

    reasonable

    of

    28

    this
    would

    claims

    by

    showing
    U.S.C.

    the

    the

    denial

    2253(c)(2)

    standard
    find

    of

    by

    that

    (2000).

    demonstrating

    any

    district

    of

    assessment

    court

    is

    a
    A

    that

    of

    the

    debatable

    or

    wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district


    court is likewise debatable.

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

    322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
    Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have

    independently reviewed the record and conclude that McLean has


    not

    made

    the

    certificate
    dispense

    of

    with

    requisite

    showing.

    appealability
    oral

    argument

    and

    Accordingly,
    dismiss

    because

    the

    the

    we

    deny

    appeal.

    facts

    and

    a
    We

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like