Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Ingram, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    15 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Vance Edward Ingram III's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determines that Ingram did not make the requisite showing to obtain 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, or that its procedural rulings were debatable. Therefore, the court dismisses Ingram's appeal and denies his motion for a transcript at government expense.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-09-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7986

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Vance Edward Ingram III's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determines that Ingram did not make the requisite showing to obtain 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, or that its procedural rulings were debatable. Therefore, the court dismisses Ingram's appeal and denies his motion for a transcript at government expense.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Ingram, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Vance Edward Ingram III's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determines that Ingram did not make the requisite showing to obtain 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, or that its procedural rulings were debatable. Therefore, the court dismisses Ingram's appeal and denies his motion for a transcript at government expense.

    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. 05-7986

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    VANCE EDWARD INGRAM, III,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
    William L. Osteen,
    District Judge. (CR-01-207; CA-05-393-1)

    Submitted:

    August 16, 2006

    Decided:

    September 8, 2006

    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Vance Edward Ingram, III, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Vance Edward Ingram, III, seeks to appeal the district
    courts order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
    and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion.

    The

    order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a


    certificate of appealability.

    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)

    (2000).

    demonstrating

    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    satisfies

    jurists

    this

    would

    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 Ingram has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we

    deny Ingrams motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss


    the appeal.

    We also deny his motion to authorize a transcript at

    government expense.

    Finally, 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