Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Khalil Blackman, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Khalil Kenyon Blackman sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Blackman did not make a substantial showing that denial of his motion resulted in a denial of a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The appeals court independently reviewed the record and concluded Blackman did not meet the standard for a certificate of appealability.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-12-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7138

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Khalil Kenyon Blackman sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Blackman did not make a substantial showing that denial of his motion resulted in a denial of a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The appeals court independently reviewed the record and concluded Blackman did not meet the standard for a certificate of appealability.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Khalil Blackman, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Khalil Kenyon Blackman sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Blackman did not make a substantial showing that denial of his motion resulted in a denial of a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The appeals court independently reviewed the record and concluded Blackman did not meet the standard for 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. 15-7138

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    KHALIL KENYON BLACKMAN,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Leonie M. Brinkema,
    District Judge. (1:12-cr-00507-LMB-1; 1:14-cv-01135-LMB)

    Submitted:

    December 11, 2015

    Decided:

    December 22, 2015

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Khalil Kenyon Blackman, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant,


    II, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Marc
    Birnbaum, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Adam B.
    Schwartz, Karen Ledbetter Taylor, Assistant United States
    Attorneys, Charles Eric Douglas Mothander, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
    STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Khalil Kenyon Blackman 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

    (2012).

    of

    appealability.

    28

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1)(B)

    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).
    relief

    on

    the

    demonstrating
    district

    merits,
    that

    courts

    debatable

    or

    When the district court denies

    prisoner

    reasonable

    assessment

    wrong.

    Slack

    satisfies

    jurists

    this

    would

    of

    the

    v.

    McDaniel,

    standard

    find

    constitutional
    529

    U.S.

    by

    that

    the

    claims

    is

    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

    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    debatable

    Slack, 529 U.S.

    at 484-85.
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
    Blackman 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

    presented in the materials before this court and argument would


    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like