Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Sheppard, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Bradley Shane Sheppard appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, as Sheppard did not obtain a certificate of appealability required under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Sheppard did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-01-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-7661

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Bradley Shane Sheppard appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, as Sheppard did not obtain a certificate of appealability required under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Sheppard did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Sheppard, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Bradley Shane Sheppard appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, as Sheppard did not obtain a certificate of appealability required under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Sheppard did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the 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. 06-7661

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    BRADLEY SHANE SHEPPARD,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.
    Henry M.
    Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (8:04-cr-420-HMH)

    Submitted:

    December 21, 2006

    Decided:

    January 5, 2007

    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Bradley Shane Sheppard, Appellant Pro Se.


    Alan Lance Crick,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Bradley Shane Sheppard seeks to appeal the district
    courts order 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.
    (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

    that

    28

    A prisoner satisfies this standard by

    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.

    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 Sheppard 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