Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Rosemond, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Calvin Rico Rosemond's appeal of a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Rosemond did not make the requisite showing 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 Rosemond's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court also declined to consider claims Rosemond asserted for the first time on appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-08-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6719

    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 Calvin Rico Rosemond's appeal of a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Rosemond did not make the requisite showing 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 Rosemond's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court also declined to consider claims Rosemond asserted for the first time on appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Rosemond, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Calvin Rico Rosemond's appeal of a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Rosemond did not make the requisite showing 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 Rosemond's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court also declined to consider claims Rosemond asserted for the first time on 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. 05-6719

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CALVIN RICO ROSEMOND,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (CR-02-435; CA-05-380-6)

    Submitted:

    July 31, 2006

    Decided:

    August 17, 2006

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Calvin Rico Rosemond, Appellant Pro Se. Regan Alexandra Pendleton,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Calvin Rico Rosemond 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.

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

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    demonstrating
    constitutional

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    claims

    are

    satisfies

    jurists

    debatable

    and

    would
    that

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find
    any

    that

    by
    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 Rosemond has not made the requisite
    showing.

    Accordingly, we deny Rosemonds 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

    We decline to consider those claims Rosemond asserts for the


    first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250
    (4th Cir. 1993).
    2

    You might also like