Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Washington v. Beck, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. David Eugene Washington sought to appeal a district court order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Washington did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which requires a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and concluded Washington did not meet this standard.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-05-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7883

    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. David Eugene Washington sought to appeal a district court order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Washington did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which requires a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and concluded Washington did not meet this standard.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views2 pages

    Washington v. Beck, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. David Eugene Washington sought to appeal a district court order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Washington did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which requires a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and concluded Washington did not meet this standard.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-7883

    DAVID EUGENE WASHINGTON,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus

    THEODIS
    BECK,
    Secretary,
    Department of Corrections,

    North

    Carolina
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
    Judge. (CA-05-361-1)

    Submitted: April 27, 2006

    Decided: May 4, 2006

    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    David Eugene Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,


    III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    David Eugene Washington seeks to appeal the district
    courts order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
    and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254
    (2000).
    judge

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or


    issues

    certificate

    of

    appealability.

    28

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).

    A prisoner satisfies this

    standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that


    the district courts assessment of his constitutional claims is
    debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the
    district court are also debatable or wrong.

    See Miller-El v.

    Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
    473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
    We

    have

    independently

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    Washington has not made the requisite showing.

    conclude

    that

    Accordingly, we

    deny Washingtons motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal,


    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 the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like