Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    United States v. Martin, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Eligia Junior Martin's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The appellate court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, as Martin did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Martin did not demonstrate that the district court's procedural ruling dismissing the motion as untimely was debatable or that his motion stated a debatable claim of a constitutional violation. Therefore, the court dismissed Martin's appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Martin, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Eligia Junior Martin's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The appellate court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, as Martin did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Martin did not demonstrate that the district court's procedural ruling dismissing the motion as untimely was debatable or that his motion stated a debatable claim of a constitutional violation. Therefore, the court dismissed Martin's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-10-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6713

    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 Eligia Junior Martin's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The appellate court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, as Martin did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Martin did not demonstrate that the district court's procedural ruling dismissing the motion as untimely was debatable or that his motion stated a debatable claim of a constitutional violation. Therefore, the court dismissed Martin's appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Martin, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Eligia Junior Martin's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The appellate court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, as Martin did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Martin did not demonstrate that the district court's procedural ruling dismissing the motion as untimely was debatable or that his motion stated a debatable claim of a constitutional violation. Therefore, the court dismissed Martin'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. 10-6713

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    ELIGIA JUNIOR MARTIN, a/k/a Shorty Boy,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Danville.
    Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
    District Judge.
    (4:06-cr-00049-jlk-mfu-3; 4:10-cv-80233-jlkmfu)

    Submitted:

    October 19, 2010

    Decided:

    October 27, 2010

    Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Eligia Junior Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford,


    Anthony Paul Giorno, Assistant United States Attorneys, Roanoke,
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Eligia
    courts

    order

    Junior

    Martin

    dismissing

    as

    (West Supp. 2010) motion.

    seeks

    untimely

    to

    appeal

    his

    28

    the

    district

    U.S.C.A.

    2255

    The order is not appealable unless a

    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.


    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006).

    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) (2006).

    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.
    529 U.S. at 484-85.

    Slack,

    We have independently reviewed the record

    and conclude that Martin 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

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like