Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Robert Fields v. Henry Ponton, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    16 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Robert Fields' appeal of a district court order treating his "Motion to Vacate Void Judgment" as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The court issued a per curiam opinion stating that the district court order was not appealable without a certificate of appealability. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Fields did not make the requisite showing to demonstrate the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-03-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7696

    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 Robert Fields' appeal of a district court order treating his "Motion to Vacate Void Judgment" as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The court issued a per curiam opinion stating that the district court order was not appealable without a certificate of appealability. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Fields did not make the requisite showing to demonstrate the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Robert Fields v. Henry Ponton, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Robert Fields' appeal of a district court order treating his "Motion to Vacate Void Judgment" as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The court issued a per curiam opinion stating that the district court order was not appealable without a certificate of appealability. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Fields did not make the requisite showing to demonstrate the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    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. 14-7696

    ROBERT FIELDS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HENRY PONTON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Henry E. Hudson, District
    Judge. (3:14-cv-00661-HEH)

    Submitted:

    February 25, 2015

    Decided:

    March 2, 2015

    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Robert Fields, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert
    order

    treating

    Fields
    his

    seeks

    to

    Motion

    to

    appeal
    Vacate

    the

    district

    Void

    courts

    Judgment

    as

    successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2012) petition and dismissing it on


    that

    basis.

    justice

    or

    The
    judge

    order
    issues

    is
    a

    not

    appealable

    certificate

    U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

    of

    unless

    circuit

    appealability.

    28

    A certificate of appealability

    will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a


    constitutional right.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).

    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

    Cockrell,

    (2000);

    (2003).

    see

    Miller-El

    v.

    537

    U.S.

    322,

    336-38

    When the district court denies relief on procedural

    grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive


    procedural ruling 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 Fields has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we

    deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in


    forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

    We dispense with oral

    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


    2

    presented in the materials before this court and argument would


    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like