US v. Jett

Filing 920070403


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6952 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALLEN JETT, a/k/a Al, Defendant - Appellant. No. 06-6953 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTOINE DEPAUL MARSHALL, a/k/a Chim Chim, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:96-cr-00458-WMN; 1:04-cv-03791-WMN; 1:04-cv-03792-WMN) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 3, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Turner Ruffin, Jr., Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Allen Jett and Antoine Marshall seek to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on their 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motions, and their motions for reconsideration filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). not appealable unless a circuit justice or The orders are issues a A judge certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000). certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would this 28 U.S.C. standard that by any demonstrating reasonable jurists find assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that neither Jett nor Marshall has made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny We further We certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals. deny the pending motions for the appointment of counsel. 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 - 3 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?