US v. Jermaine Woodbury

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998246106-2]; terminating Motion to extend filing time [998160422-2]; denying Motion to schedule oral argument [998387068-2] Originating case number: 8:07-cv-02809-AW,8:03-cr-00501-AW-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998477661] [09-7359]

Download PDF
US v. Jermaine Woodbury Doc. 0 Case: 09-7359 Document: 46 Date Filed: 12/03/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7359 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERMAINE R. WOODBURY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:07-cv-02809-AW; 8:03-cr-00501-AW-1) Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 3, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Wein, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Suzanne Skalla, Assistant United States Maryland, for Appellee. Appellant. Barbara Attorney, Greenbelt, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 09-7359 Document: 46 Date Filed: 12/03/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Jermaine R. Woodbury seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. 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 court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 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 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 Woodbury has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Woodbury's pending motion to appoint counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We deny Woodbury's motion to schedule oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 2 Case: 09-7359 Document: 46 Date Filed: 12/03/2010 Page: 3 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?