Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Percell Burrows, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views3 pages
    Percell Burrows appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Burrows did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Burrows did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that the issues raised in his motion stated a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. The Fourth Circuit conducted an independent review of the record and concluded Burrows was not entitled to a certificate of appealability.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-07-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-6305

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Percell Burrows appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Burrows did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Burrows did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that the issues raised in his motion stated a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. The Fourth Circuit conducted an independent review of the record and concluded Burrows was not entitled to a certificate of appealability.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Percell Burrows, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Percell Burrows appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Burrows did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Burrows did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that the issues raised in his motion stated a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. The Fourth Circuit conducted an independent review of the record and concluded Burrows was not entitled to a certificate of appealability.

    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. 15-6305

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    PERCELL BURROWS, a/k/a Light,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
    District Judge. (4:08-cr-00147-AWA-FBS-5)

    Submitted:

    July 21, 2015

    Decided:

    July 23, 2015

    Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Percell Burrows, Appellant Pro Se.


    Howard Jacob Zlotnick,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Percell Burrows seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012) motion.

    The order

    is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a


    certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

    A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
    2253(c)(2) (2012).

    28 U.S.C.

    When the district court denies relief on the

    merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that


    reasonable jurists would find that the district 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).

    When the district court denies relief on

    procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the


    dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion
    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
    Burrows 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 this


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like