Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Morris v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Donnell Joseph Morris's appeal of a district court order that denied relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The court determined that Morris did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2241 petition. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Morris did not demonstrate the denial of a constitutional right or that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims was debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court dismissed Morris's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-07-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-6603

    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 Donnell Joseph Morris's appeal of a district court order that denied relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The court determined that Morris did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2241 petition. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Morris did not demonstrate the denial of a constitutional right or that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims was debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court dismissed Morris's appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Morris v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Donnell Joseph Morris's appeal of a district court order that denied relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The court determined that Morris did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2241 petition. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Morris did not demonstrate the denial of a constitutional right or that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims was debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court dismissed Morris's 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. 08-6603

    DONNELL JOSEPH MORRIS,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (2:08-cv-00114-RAJ-FBS)

    Submitted:

    July 22, 2008

    Decided:

    July 25, 2008

    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Donnell Joseph Morris, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Donnell Joseph Morris, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal
    the district courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2241
    (2000) petition.

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit

    justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.


    U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).
    not

    issue

    absent

    constitutional right.

    See 28

    A certificate of appealability will

    substantial

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000).

    of

    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. See
    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 Morris has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to
    proceed

    in

    forma

    pauperis,

    deny

    Morris

    motion

    requesting

    subpoena for telephone transcripts, and dismiss the appeal.

    a
    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