Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    United States v. Patrick E. Francis, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Patrick Earl Francis's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court concluded that Francis did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the dismissal of a successive § 2255 motion. Specifically, the court found that Francis did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's ruling or that his motion stated a debatable claim of a denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed Francis's appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Patrick E. Francis, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Patrick Earl Francis's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court concluded that Francis did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the dismissal of a successive § 2255 motion. Specifically, the court found that Francis did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's ruling or that his motion stated a debatable claim of a denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed Francis's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-08-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-6776

    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 Patrick Earl Francis's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court concluded that Francis did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the dismissal of a successive § 2255 motion. Specifically, the court found that Francis did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's ruling or that his motion stated a debatable claim of a denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed Francis's appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Patrick E. Francis, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Patrick Earl Francis's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court concluded that Francis did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the dismissal of a successive § 2255 motion. Specifically, the court found that Francis did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's ruling or that his motion stated a debatable claim of a denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed Francis's 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. 14-6776

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    PATRICK EARL FRANCIS, a/k/a Jerome Durant Brown,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
    District Judge. (7:94-cr-40106-JLK-4; 7:14-cv-80722-JLK-RSB)

    Submitted:

    July 29, 2014

    Decided:

    August 1, 2014

    Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Patrick Earl Francis, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford,


    Assistant
    United
    States
    Attorney,
    Roanoke,
    Virginia,
    for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Patrick
    courts

    order

    or

    Francis

    dismissing

    (2012) motion.
    justice

    Earl

    as

    seeks

    to

    successive

    appeal
    his

    28

    the

    district

    U.S.C.

    2255

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit

    judge

    issues

    certificate

    U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

    of

    appealability.

    28

    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).

    When the

    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies


    this

    standard

    by

    demonstrating

    that

    reasonable

    jurists

    would

    find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional


    claims is debatable or wrong.

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

    484

    Cockrell,

    (2000);

    (2003).

    see

    Miller-El

    v.

    537

    U.S.

    322,

    336-38

    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 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 Francis has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly,

    we 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

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like