Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Carr, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    Adam Carr sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Carr did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability that is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, Carr did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. The Fourth Circuit also denied Carr's motions for disclosure of grand jury minutes and for an extraordinary writ.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-07-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6217

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Adam Carr sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Carr did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability that is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, Carr did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. The Fourth Circuit also denied Carr's motions for disclosure of grand jury minutes and for an extraordinary writ.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Carr, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Adam Carr sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Carr did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability that is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, Carr did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. The Fourth Circuit also denied Carr's motions for disclosure of grand jury minutes and for an extraordinary writ.

    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. 05-6217

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ADAM NICKLOUS CARR,
    Defendant -

    Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
    Chief District Judge. (CR-01-126; CA-04-187-1)

    Submitted:

    July 14, 2005

    Decided:

    July 22, 2005

    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Adam Nicklous Carr, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Cannon, Assistant


    United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Adam Nicklous Carr seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255
    (2000).
    judge

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or


    issues

    certificate

    of

    appealability.

    28

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 prisoner satisfies 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, 336-38 (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 Carr has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
    appeal.

    We also deny Carrs pending motions for disclosure of

    grand jury minutes and for an extraordindary writ under Fed. R.


    App. P. 21(c).

    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