US v. Moorthy Ram


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint counsel [999600411-2], updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 3:09-cr-00020-HEH-RCY-1, 3:15-cv-00284-HEH-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999629214]. Mailed to: Moorthy Ram. [15-6859]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6859 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/28/2015 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6859 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. MOORTHY SRINIVASAN RAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:09-cr-00020-HEH-RCY-1; 3:15-cv-00284-HEH-RCY) Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 28, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Moorthy Srinivasan Ram, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ronald Gill, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-6859 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/28/2015 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Moorthy Srinivasan Ram 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. 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.” § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 28 U.S.C. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district 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). 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 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 Ram has not made the requisite showing. certificate of appealability, deny counsel, and dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, we deny a Ram’s motion to appoint 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 2

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?