Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Warshahennedige Fernando, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Warshahennedige Anton Raj Nishantha Fernando sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Fernando had not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. To appeal further, Fernando would need a certificate of appealability issued by a circuit judge, but the appeals court determined he had not shown that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims was debatable or wrong, or that any dispositive procedural rulings were debatable, as required to obtain a certificate of appealability.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-06-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-6356

    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 in which Warshahennedige Anton Raj Nishantha Fernando sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Fernando had not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. To appeal further, Fernando would need a certificate of appealability issued by a circuit judge, but the appeals court determined he had not shown that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims was debatable or wrong, or that any dispositive procedural rulings were debatable, as required to obtain 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. Warshahennedige Fernando, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Warshahennedige Anton Raj Nishantha Fernando sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Fernando had not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. To appeal further, Fernando would need a certificate of appealability issued by a circuit judge, but the appeals court determined he had not shown that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims was debatable or wrong, or that any dispositive procedural rulings were debatable, as required to obtain 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. 13-6356

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    WARSHAHENNEDIGE ANTON RAJ NISHANTHA FERNANDO,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
    N. Carlton Tilley,
    Jr., Senior District Judge.
    (1:07-cr-00038-NCT-1; 1:10-cv00192-NCT-JEP; 1:10-cv-00257-NCT-JEP)

    Submitted:

    June 13, 2013

    Decided:

    June 18, 2013

    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Warshahennedige Anton Raj Nishantha Fernando, Appellant Pro Se.


    Michael A. DeFranco, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United
    States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Warshahennedige Anton Raj Nishantha Fernando seeks to
    appeal the district courts order accepting the recommendation
    of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A.
    2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion.
    unless

    circuit

    appealability.

    justice

    or

    The order is not appealable

    judge

    issues

    certificate

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

    of

    A certificate

    of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of


    the denial of a constitutional right.
    (2006).

    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 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 Fernando 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