Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Phillip Dixon's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Dixon did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. As such, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Dixon's appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-12-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-6981

    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 Phillip Dixon's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Dixon did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. As such, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Dixon's appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Phillip Dixon's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Dixon did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. As such, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Dixon's appeal without oral argument.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 04-6981

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    PHILLIP ERNEST DIXON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham.
    Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CR-00-36; CA-03-412)

    Submitted:

    November 19, 2004

    Decided:

    December 2, 2004

    Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Phillip Ernest Dixon, Appellant Pro Se.


    Sandra Jane Hairston,
    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:
    Phillip Ernest Dixon seeks to appeal the district courts
    order accepting the recommendation of a magistrate judge and
    denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000).
    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues a certificate of appealability.
    (2000).

    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.


    U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000).
    demonstrating
    constitutional

    that

    A prisoner satisfies this standard by

    reasonable

    claims

    are

    28

    jurists

    debatable

    would

    and

    that

    find
    any

    that

    his

    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

    Dixon

    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