Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Brian Oakman's appeal of the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal such an order, which will not issue absent a substantial showing that constitutional rights were denied. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Oakman did not make the requisite showing, so it denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-06-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6478

    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 Brian Oakman's appeal of the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal such an order, which will not issue absent a substantial showing that constitutional rights were denied. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Oakman did not make the requisite showing, so it denied 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
    6 views2 pages

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Brian Oakman's appeal of the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal such an order, which will not issue absent a substantial showing that constitutional rights were denied. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Oakman did not make the requisite showing, so it denied 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 07-6478

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    BRIAN MAURICE OAKMAN,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.
    (1:00-cr-00154-CMC; 1:03-cv-00497)

    Submitted:

    May 31, 2007

    Decided: June 8, 2007

    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Brian Maurice Oakman, Appellant Pro Se.


    Stacey Denise Haynes,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Brian Maurice Oakman seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration
    of 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.
    2004).

    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 Oakman 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