Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    Marvin Edwards v. Eric Wilson, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Marvin Edwards, a District of Columbia Code offender, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and subsequent denial of reconsideration. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal such orders, which will not be issued absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Edwards did not make the requisite showing. The court therefore 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

    You might also like

    Marvin Edwards v. Eric Wilson, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views3 pages
    1) Marvin Edwards, a District of Columbia Code offender, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and subsequent denial of reconsideration. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal such orders, which will not be issued absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Edwards did not make the requisite showing. The court therefore denied a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-07-31 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-6233

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Marvin Edwards, a District of Columbia Code offender, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and subsequent denial of reconsideration. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal such orders, which will not be issued absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Edwards did not make the requisite showing. The court therefore 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
    2 views3 pages

    Marvin Edwards v. Eric Wilson, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Marvin Edwards, a District of Columbia Code offender, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and subsequent denial of reconsideration. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal such orders, which will not be issued absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Edwards did not make the requisite showing. The court therefore 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. 14-6233

    MARVIN EDWARDS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    ERIC WILSON, Warden, FCI-Medium Petersburg,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
    Arenda L. Wright Allen,
    District Judge. (2:13-cv-00041-AWA-DEM)

    Submitted:

    July 29, 2014

    Decided:

    July 31, 2014

    Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Marvin Edwards, Appellant Pro Se.


    Joel Eric Wilson, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Marvin Edwards, a District of Columbia Code offender,
    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts

    orders

    accepting

    the

    recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on


    Edwards

    28

    U.S.C.

    2241

    (2012)

    reconsideration of that order.


    unless

    circuit

    appealability.

    justice

    or

    petition,

    and

    denying

    The orders are not appealable


    judge

    issues

    certificate

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

    of

    A certificate

    of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of


    the denial of a constitutional right.
    (2012).

    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 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 Edwards has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly,

    we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in


    forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
    2

    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