Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    United States v. Beth Broyles, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Beth Ann Broyles sought to appeal the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and concluded that Broyles did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Broyles did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's assessment of her constitutional claims or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied Broyles' motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Beth Broyles, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views3 pages
    Beth Ann Broyles sought to appeal the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and concluded that Broyles did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Broyles did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's assessment of her constitutional claims or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied Broyles' motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-07-31 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-6354

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Beth Ann Broyles sought to appeal the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and concluded that Broyles did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Broyles did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's assessment of her constitutional claims or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied Broyles' motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the 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. Beth Broyles, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Beth Ann Broyles sought to appeal the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and concluded that Broyles did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Broyles did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's assessment of her constitutional claims or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied Broyles' motion for a certificate of appealability 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. 14-6354

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    BETH ANN BROYLES,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
    Mark S. Davis, District
    Judge. (2:09-cr-00003-MSD-TEM-23; 2:11-cv-00496-MSD)

    Submitted:

    July 21, 2014

    Decided:

    July 31, 2014

    Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Beth Ann Broyles, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Alleman,


    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Joseph Evan DePadilla,
    Stephen Westley Haynie, Assistant United States Attorneys,
    Norfolk, Virginia; Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Beth Ann Broyles seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on her 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 Broyles has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly,

    we deny Broyles motion for a certificate of appealability and


    dismiss the appeal.
    facts

    and

    legal

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like