Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    United States v. Farrior, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Kareem Berlin Farrior sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and subsequent Rule 59(e) motion. The circuit court reviewed the record independently and concluded that Farrior did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Specifically, he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As a result, the circuit court dismissed Farrior's appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Farrior, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views3 pages
    Kareem Berlin Farrior sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and subsequent Rule 59(e) motion. The circuit court reviewed the record independently and concluded that Farrior did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Specifically, he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As a result, the circuit court dismissed Farrior's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-08-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6256

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Kareem Berlin Farrior sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and subsequent Rule 59(e) motion. The circuit court reviewed the record independently and concluded that Farrior did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Specifically, he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As a result, the circuit court dismissed Farrior's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views3 pages

    United States v. Farrior, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Kareem Berlin Farrior sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and subsequent Rule 59(e) motion. The circuit court reviewed the record independently and concluded that Farrior did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Specifically, he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As a result, the circuit court dismissed Farrior's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-6256

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    KAREEM BERLIN FARRIOR,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Glen E. Conrad, District
    Judge. (7:06-cr-00045-gec-mfu-1; 7:09-cv-80155-gec-mfu)

    Submitted:

    July 27, 2010

    Decided:

    August 5, 2010

    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit


    Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Kareem Berlin Farrior, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Jon Jacobsen, I,


    Assistant
    United
    States
    Attorney,
    Roanoke,
    Virginia,
    for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Kareem

    Berlin

    Farrior

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West


    Supp. 2010) motion and subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.
    The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues a certificate of appealability.
    (2006).

    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.


    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).
    relief

    on

    the

    demonstrating
    district
    debatable

    merits,
    that

    courts
    or

    When the district court denies

    prisoner

    reasonable

    assessment

    wrong.

    Slack

    satisfies

    jurists

    this

    would

    of

    the

    v.

    McDaniel,

    standard

    find

    constitutional
    529

    U.S.

    by

    that

    the

    claims

    is

    473,

    484

    (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).


    When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
    prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
    ruling

    is

    debatable,

    and

    that

    the

    motion

    states

    debatable

    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    Slack, 529 U.S.

    at

    the

    484-85.

    conclude

    that

    We

    have

    Farrior

    independently
    has

    not

    made

    reviewed
    the

    record

    requisite

    and

    showing.

    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

    the

    decisional

    process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like