Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of United States v. Corey Jacobs. The court dismissed Corey Jacobs' appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Jacobs did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Therefore, the court denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-08-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6214

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of United States v. Corey Jacobs. The court dismissed Corey Jacobs' appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Jacobs did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Therefore, the court denied the 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
    8 views2 pages

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of United States v. Corey Jacobs. The court dismissed Corey Jacobs' appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Jacobs did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Therefore, the court denied the 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 07-6214

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    COREY JACOBS, a/k/a Buck,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (2:93-cr-00117-HCM-1; 2:04-cv-00717-HCM)

    Submitted:

    July 23, 2007

    Decided:

    August 20, 2007

    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Robert Allen Ratliff, ROBERT A. RATLIFF, PC, Mobile, Alabama, for


    Appellant.
    Charles Philip Rosenberg, United States Attorney,
    Alexandria, Virginia; Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Corey Jacobs seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion.
    not

    appealable

    unless

    circuit

    certificate of appealability.

    justice

    or

    The order is

    judge

    issues

    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) (2000).
    demonstrating

    that

    28 U.S.C.

    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 Jacobs 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