Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Patterson v. Dept of Corrections, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    Robert Patterson appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and denied a certificate of appealability. A certificate is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition, and will only be granted if reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of constitutional claims debatable or wrong. However, the Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and found Patterson did not make the requisite showing. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and denied Patterson's motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-02-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-7428

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Robert Patterson appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and denied a certificate of appealability. A certificate is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition, and will only be granted if reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of constitutional claims debatable or wrong. However, the Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and found Patterson did not make the requisite showing. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and denied Patterson's motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot.

    Copyright:

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

    Patterson v. Dept of Corrections, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Robert Patterson appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and denied a certificate of appealability. A certificate is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition, and will only be granted if reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of constitutional claims debatable or wrong. However, the Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and found Patterson did not make the requisite showing. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and denied Patterson's motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot.

    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. 07-7428

    ROBERT EDWARD PATTERSON,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
    District Judge. (7:07-cv-00344-jlk)

    Submitted:

    February 21, 2008

    Decided:

    February 26, 2008

    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Robert Edward Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris,


    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Edward Patterson seeks to appeal the district
    courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000)
    petition.
    judge

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

    issues

    certificate

    of

    appealability.

    See

    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


    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.

    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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).
    We

    have

    independently

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    conclude

    that

    Patterson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny


    a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    We deny

    Pattersons motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot.

    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