US v. Spencer Peter
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00186-REP-RCY-2, 3:12-cv-00128-REP-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999650461]. Mailed to: Spencer Peters. [15-6510]
Appeal: 15-6510
Doc: 8
Filed: 08/31/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6510
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SPENCER PETERS, a/k/a Smoke,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge.
(3:08-cr-00186-REP-RCY-2; 3:12-cv-00128-REPRCY)
Submitted:
August 27, 2015
Decided:
August 31, 2015
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Spencer Peters, Appellant Pro Se.
Assistant United States Attorney,
Appellee.
Peter Sinclair Duffey,
Richmond, Virginia, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-6510
Doc: 8
Filed: 08/31/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Spencer Peters seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The order
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.
A
certificate
of
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
appealability
will
not
issue
absent
“a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief
on
the
demonstrating
district
merits,
that
court’s
debatable
or
a
When the district court denies
prisoner
reasonable
assessment
wrong.
satisfies
jurists
would
of
Slack
this
the
v.
McDaniel,
standard
find
that
the
claims
constitutional
529
by
is
U.S.
473,
484
(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
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
a
debatable
Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Peters
has
not
made
our
brief.
See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
not
disposition,
challenge
Peters
to
requisite
confine
does
review
the
the
the
has
issues
showing.
raised
On
in
the
appeal,
we
Appellant’s
Because Peters’ informal brief
basis
forfeited
2
for
the
district
appellate
review
court’s
of
the
Appeal: 15-6510
court’s
Doc: 8
order.
Filed: 08/31/2015
Pg: 3 of 3
Accordingly,
we
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
deny
a
certificate
of
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this 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?