US v. Anirudh Sukhu
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999636700-2], updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00557-WDQ-1,1:15-cv-00720-WDQ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Anirudh Sukhu. [15-6563]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
ANIRUDH LAKHAN SUKHU,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00557-WDQ-1; 1:15-cv-00720-WDQ)
August 28, 2015
September 21, 2015
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anirudh Lakhan Sukhu, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Rachel Miller Yasser, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Anirudh Lakhan Sukhu seeks to appeal the district court’s
prejudice as successive.
The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court
debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right.
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Sukhu has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
Pg: 3 of 3
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?