Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Plaisir, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Nixon Plaisir's appeal of a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court concluded that Plaisir did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, Plaisir did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of Plaisir's constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable. Therefore, the court dismissed Plaisir's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-11-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-7330

    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 Nixon Plaisir's appeal of a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court concluded that Plaisir did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, Plaisir did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of Plaisir's constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable. Therefore, the court dismissed Plaisir's appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Plaisir, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Nixon Plaisir's appeal of a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court concluded that Plaisir did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, Plaisir did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of Plaisir's constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable. Therefore, the court dismissed Plaisir'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. 07-7330

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    NIXON PLAISIR,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
    James C. Turk, Senior
    District Judge. (5:02-cr-30098; 7:06-cv-00470)

    Submitted:

    November 15, 2007

    Decided:

    November 27, 2007

    Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Nixon Plaisir, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce A. Pagel, OFFICE OF THE


    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Nixon Plaisir seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion.
    not

    appealable

    unless

    circuit

    certificate of appealability.

    justice

    or

    The order is

    judge

    issues

    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

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    satisfies

    jurists

    would

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find

    that

    by
    any

    assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is


    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 Plaisir has not
    made the requisite 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

    - 2 -

    You might also like