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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999663475]. Mailed to: Anirudh Sukhu. [15-6563]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6563 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6563 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ANIRUDH LAKHAN SUKHU, Defendant -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) Submitted: August 28, 2015 Decided: 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-6563 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Anirudh Lakhan Sukhu seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 prejudice as successive. U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion without The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” (2012). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court’s 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). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must ruling is 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. a certificate dispense with of appealability oral argument and dismiss because 2 Accordingly, we deny the the appeal. facts and We legal Appeal: 15-6563 Doc: 11 contentions are Filed: 09/21/2015 adequately Pg: 3 of 3 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?