Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    United States v. Bennett, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Timothy Bennett's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denial of reconsideration. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal such orders, but the court determined that Bennett did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Bennett did not satisfy the standard of demonstrating reasonable jurists could debate the district court's assessment or procedural rulings. Therefore, the court denied Bennett'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

    You might also like

    United States v. Bennett, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Timothy Bennett's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denial of reconsideration. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal such orders, but the court determined that Bennett did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Bennett did not satisfy the standard of demonstrating reasonable jurists could debate the district court's assessment or procedural rulings. Therefore, the court denied Bennett's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-07-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-6465

    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 Timothy Bennett's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denial of reconsideration. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal such orders, but the court determined that Bennett did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Bennett did not satisfy the standard of demonstrating reasonable jurists could debate the district court's assessment or procedural rulings. Therefore, the court denied Bennett'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
    7 views2 pages

    United States v. Bennett, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Timothy Bennett's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denial of reconsideration. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal such orders, but the court determined that Bennett did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Bennett did not satisfy the standard of demonstrating reasonable jurists could debate the district court's assessment or procedural rulings. Therefore, the court denied Bennett'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 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-6465

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    TIMOTHY O. BENNETT,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg,
    District Judge. (2:06-cr-00006-LHT-DLH-1; 2:07-cv-00020-LHT)

    Submitted:

    May 29, 2008

    Decided:

    July 3, 2008

    Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Timothy O. Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Corey F. Ellis, OFFICE OF


    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Timothy
    appealability,

    O.

    Bennett

    seeking

    to

    moves

    appeal

    for

    the

    certificate

    district

    courts

    of

    orders

    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion and denying


    his motion for reconsideration.
    unless

    circuit

    appealability.

    justice

    or

    The orders are not appealable


    judge

    issues

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    certificate

    of

    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.

    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).
    record

    and

    showing.

    conclude

    that

    We have independently reviewed the

    Bennett

    has

    not

    made

    the

    requisite

    Accordingly, we deny the motion for 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