US v. Curtis Arnold
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999618600-2], updating certificate of appealability status. Originating case number: 3:05-cr-00046-RJC-DSC-2,3:10-cv-00453-RJC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999646796]. Mailed to: Curtis Arnold FCI FORT DIX FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 2000 Joint Base MDL, NJ 08640-0000. [15-6850]
Appeal: 15-6850
Doc: 14
Filed: 08/25/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6850
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CURTIS ARNOLD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge.
(3:05-cr-00046-RJC-DSC-2; 3:10-cv-00453RJC)
Submitted:
August 20, 2015
Decided:
August 25, 2015
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis Arnold, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas A. O’Malley, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-6850
Doc: 14
Filed: 08/25/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Arnold 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
merits,
demonstrating
district
that
court’s
debatable
or
a
When the district court denies
prisoner
reasonable
assessment
wrong.
satisfies
jurists
would
of
the
v.
McDaniel,
Slack
this
standard
find
U.S.
that
the
claims
constitutional
529
by
is
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
Arnold has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
Arnold’s motion for transcripts at Government expense, deny a
certificate
dispense
of
with
appealability,
and
oral
because
argument
2
dismiss
the
the
appeal.
facts
and
We
legal
Appeal: 15-6850
Doc: 14
contentions
are
Filed: 08/25/2015
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?