Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Woodard, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Calvin Woodard, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and denied Woodard a certificate of appealability, finding that he failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court then dismissed Woodard's appeal, as well as his additional motions for general relief and to consolidate and expand his application for a certificate of appealability.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-11-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-6216

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Calvin Woodard, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and denied Woodard a certificate of appealability, finding that he failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court then dismissed Woodard's appeal, as well as his additional motions for general relief and to consolidate and expand his application for a certificate of appealability.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Woodard, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Calvin Woodard, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and denied Woodard a certificate of appealability, finding that he failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court then dismissed Woodard's appeal, as well as his additional motions for general relief and to consolidate and expand his application for a certificate of appealability.

    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. 04-6216

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CALVIN WOODARD,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge.
    (CR-00-299-MJG; CA-03-788-MJG)

    Submitted:

    September 20, 2004

    Decided:

    November 5, 2004

    Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Calvin Woodard, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie S. Greenberg, OFFICE OF


    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Calvin Woodard, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district courts order denying relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C.
    2255 (2000).

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit

    justice or judge issues a 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


    his constitutional claims are 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).
    record

    and

    conclude

    that

    We have independently reviewed the


    Woodard

    has

    not

    made

    the

    requisite

    showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny


    Woodards motions for general relief and for leave to consolidate
    and expand the application for a certificate of appealability, and
    dismiss the appeal.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like