Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    United States v. Kelvin Badger, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Kelvin Badger's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Badger failed to make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. Specifically, the court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Badger did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied Badger's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Kelvin Badger, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Kelvin Badger's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Badger failed to make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. Specifically, the court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Badger did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied Badger's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-11-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-7047

    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 Kelvin Badger's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Badger failed to make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. Specifically, the court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Badger did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied Badger's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Kelvin Badger, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Kelvin Badger's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Badger failed to make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. Specifically, the court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Badger did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied Badger's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his 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. 13-7047

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    KELVIN BERNARD BADGER, a/k/a K-Badge,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District
    Judge. (1:06-cr-01254-MBS-1; 1:10-cv-70249-MBS)

    Submitted:

    October 28, 2013

    Before MOTZ and


    Circuit Judge.

    SHEDD,

    Circuit

    Decided:

    Judges,

    and

    November 8, 2013

    HAMILTON,

    Senior

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Kelvin Bernard Badger, Appellant Pro Se. John David Rowell,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Kelvin

    Bernard

    Badger

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West


    Supp.

    2013)

    motion.

    The

    order

    is

    not

    appealable

    unless

    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.


    28

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1)(B)

    (2006).

    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

    on

    both

    procedural

    that

    the

    When the district court

    grounds,

    dispositive

    the

    prisoner

    procedural

    must

    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 Badger has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we

    deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.


    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    We

    legal

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like