US v. John Small

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:06-cr-00006-JBF-JEB-2,4:09-cv-00063-JBF Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998418256] [10-6660]

Download PDF
US v. John Small Doc. 0 Case: 10-6660 Document: 8 Date Filed: 09/03/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6660 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN J. SMALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (4:06-cr-00006-JBF-JEB-2; 4:09-cv-00063-JBF) Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 3, 2010 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John J. Small, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ronald Gill, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 10-6660 Document: 8 Date Filed: 09/03/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: John J. Small seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a A certificate of appealability will not showing of the denial of a substantial 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. and conclude that Slack, We have independently reviewed the record Small 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 2 Case: 10-6660 Document: 8 Date Filed: 09/03/2010 Page: 3 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?