Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Chin, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Jermol Chin appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that Chin did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. To receive such a certificate, a petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's denial of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. However, the appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Chin did not make this showing. Therefore, the court denied Chin's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-06-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6117

    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 summarizes a court case in which Jermol Chin appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that Chin did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. To receive such a certificate, a petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's denial of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. However, the appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Chin did not make this showing. Therefore, the court denied Chin's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views3 pages

    United States v. Chin, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Jermol Chin appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that Chin did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. To receive such a certificate, a petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's denial of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. However, the appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Chin did not make this showing. Therefore, the court denied Chin's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-6117

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    JERMOL CHIN,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    William D. Quarles, Jr., District
    Judge. (1:06-cr-00552-WDQ-1; 1:09-cv-2317-WDQ)

    Submitted:

    June 17, 2010

    Before MOTZ and


    Circuit Judge.

    KING,

    Decided:

    Circuit

    Judges,

    and

    June 25, 2010

    HAMILTON,

    Senior

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jermol Chin, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States


    Attorney, Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jermol Chin seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying

    relief

    motion.

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

    judge

    issues

    on

    his

    absent

    U.S.C.A.

    certificate

    2253(c)(1) (2006).
    issue

    28

    of

    2255

    (West

    Supp.

    appealability.

    28

    2009)

    U.S.C.

    A certificate of appealability will not

    substantial

    constitutional right.

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).

    of

    When the

    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies


    this

    standard

    by

    demonstrating

    that

    reasonable

    jurists

    would

    find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional


    claims is debatable or wrong.

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

    484

    Cockrell,

    (2000);

    (2003).

    see

    Miller-El

    v.

    537

    U.S.

    322,

    336-38

    When the district court denies relief on procedural

    grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive


    procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a
    debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
    529 U.S. at 484-85.
    and

    conclude

    Accordingly,

    that
    we

    Slack,

    We have independently reviewed the record


    Chin

    deny

    has
    Chins

    not

    made

    the

    motions

    for

    appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    requisite
    a

    showing.

    certificate

    of

    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

    You might also like