Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    Randall Keystone v. Director of VA DOC, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Randall J. Keystone appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely and denial of his motion to reconsider. The circuit court reviewed the record and concluded that Keystone did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Keystone did not demonstrate that the district court's procedural ruling that his petition was untimely was debatable or that his petition stated a debatable claim of a denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the circuit court dismissed Keystone's appeal and denied his motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Randall Keystone v. Director of VA DOC, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    23 views3 pages
    Randall J. Keystone appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely and denial of his motion to reconsider. The circuit court reviewed the record and concluded that Keystone did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Keystone did not demonstrate that the district court's procedural ruling that his petition was untimely was debatable or that his petition stated a debatable claim of a denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the circuit court dismissed Keystone's appeal and denied his motion for appointment of counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-12-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7117

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Randall J. Keystone appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely and denial of his motion to reconsider. The circuit court reviewed the record and concluded that Keystone did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Keystone did not demonstrate that the district court's procedural ruling that his petition was untimely was debatable or that his petition stated a debatable claim of a denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the circuit court dismissed Keystone's appeal and denied his motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    23 views3 pages

    Randall Keystone v. Director of VA DOC, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Randall J. Keystone appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely and denial of his motion to reconsider. The circuit court reviewed the record and concluded that Keystone did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Keystone did not demonstrate that the district court's procedural ruling that his petition was untimely was debatable or that his petition stated a debatable claim of a denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the circuit court dismissed Keystone's appeal and denied his motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-7117

    RANDALL J. KEYSTONE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    James C. Turk, Senior
    District Judge. (7:14-cv-00213-JCT)

    Submitted:

    December 18, 2014

    Decided:

    December 22, 2014

    Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Randall J. Keystone, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Randall

    J.

    Keystone

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2012)


    petition as untimely and denying his motion to reconsider under
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

    The orders are not appealable unless a

    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.


    See

    28

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1)(A)

    (2012).

    certificate

    of

    appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of


    the denial of a constitutional right.
    (2012).

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

    When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

    prisoner

    satisfies

    this

    jurists

    would

    reasonable

    standard
    find

    by

    that

    demonstrating

    the

    district

    that

    courts

    assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.


    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
    Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
    denies

    relief

    demonstrate

    both

    on

    procedural

    that

    the

    When the district court

    grounds,

    dispositive

    the

    prisoner

    procedural

    ruling

    must
    is

    debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the


    denial of a constitutional right.

    Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude


    that Keystone has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly,

    we deny a certificate of appealability and Keystones motion for


    appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal.

    We dispense

    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    2

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this

    court

    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    DISMISSED

    You might also like