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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6510 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/31/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6510 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SPENCER PETERS, a/k/a Smoke, Defendant -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Peter Sinclair Duffey, Richmond, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?