US v. Anirudh Sukhu
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?