US v. Ira Huggins

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998378034-2] Originating case number: 2:04-cr-01098-PMD-1,2:08-cv-70001-PMD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998478566] [10-6187]

Download PDF
US v. Ira Huggins Doc. 0 Case: 10-6187 Document: 17 Date Filed: 12/06/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6187 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. IRA ST ANTHONY HUGGINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:04-cr-01098-PMD-1; 2:08-cv-70001-PMD) Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 6, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ira St Anthony Huggins, Appellant Pro Se. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 10-6187 Document: 17 Date Filed: 12/06/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Ira St Anthony Huggins seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. not appealable unless a circuit justice or The order is issues a judge certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, of 369 F.3d 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006); 363, will 369 not (4th issue Cir. 2004). "a A certificate appealability absent substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the merits, that a When the district court denies satisfies would this standard that claims 473, by the is 484 prisoner demonstrating district debatable reasonable of v. jurists the find court's or assessment Slack constitutional 529 U.S. wrong. McDaniel, (2000); see Miller-El v. 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. at 484-85. that We have independently has not made reviewed the Slack, 529 U.S. the record and conclude Huggins requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Huggins' motion for 2 appointment of counsel is Case: 10-6187 Document: 17 Date Filed: 12/06/2010 Page: 3 denied. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional contentions the court would 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?