Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    Vassel McFadden appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because McFadden did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, which is required for a certificate of appealability. The court independently reviewed the record and found that reasonable jurists would not debate that the district court's procedural rulings or McFadden's constitutional claims were wrong or debatable. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-02-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7436

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Vassel McFadden appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because McFadden did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, which is required for a certificate of appealability. The court independently reviewed the record and found that reasonable jurists would not debate that the district court's procedural rulings or McFadden's constitutional claims were wrong or debatable. Therefore, the court 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
    7 views2 pages

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Vassel McFadden appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because McFadden did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, which is required for a certificate of appealability. The court independently reviewed the record and found that reasonable jurists would not debate that the district court's procedural rulings or McFadden's constitutional claims were wrong or debatable. Therefore, the court 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 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-7436

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    VASSEL MCFADDEN,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
    Judge. (CR-01-176; CA-03-302)

    Submitted:

    January 30, 2004

    Decided:

    February 19, 2004

    Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Vassel McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant


    United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Vassel McFadden seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion.

    McFadden cannot

    appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a


    certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas

    appellant meets 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 McFadden has not made the
    requisite

    showing.

    Accordingly,

    we

    appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    deny

    certificate

    of

    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