US v. Harold Amo
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 2:06-cr-00086-1,2:09-cv-01379 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998591817]. Mailed to: Harold Amos, William Noel. [10-7596]
Appeal: 10-7596
Document: 14
Date Filed: 05/18/2011
Page: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7596
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
HAROLD PHILLIP AMOS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Joseph R. Goodwin,
Chief District Judge. (2:06-cr-00086-1; 2:09-cv-01379)
Submitted:
May 11, 2011
Decided:
May 18, 2011
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harold Phillip Amos, Appellant Pro Se. William Chad Noel, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 10-7596
Document: 14
Date Filed: 05/18/2011
Page: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Harold
court’s
order
Phillip
accepting
Amos
the
seeks
to
appeal
recommendation
of
the
the
district
magistrate
judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2010) motion.
justice
or
The order is not appealable unless a circuit
judge
issues
a
certificate
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).
not
issue
absent
“a
appealability.
28
A certificate of appealability will
substantial
constitutional right.”
of
showing
of
the
denial
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
of
a
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.
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.
and
conclude
that
Slack,
We have independently reviewed the record
Amos
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
Appeal: 10-7596
before
Document: 14
the
court
Date Filed: 05/18/2011
and
argument
would
Page: 3 of 3
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?