US v. Richard Bernard
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 3:03-cr-00420-JRS-3,3:13-cv-00042-JRS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999735007]. Mailed to: Richard Dwight Bernard. [15-7116]
Appeal: 15-7116
Doc: 12
Filed: 01/13/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7116
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RICHARD DWIGHT BERNARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:03-cr-00420-JRS-3; 3:13-cv-00042-JRS)
Submitted:
December 22, 2015
Decided:
January 13, 2016
Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Dwight Bernard, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia L. Norman,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-7116
Doc: 12
Filed: 01/13/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Richard Dwight Bernard seeks to appeal the district court’s
order
dismissing
successive.
justice
or
his
28
The
order
is
judge
issues
a
U.S.C.
not
§ 2255
appealable
certificate
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
(2012)
of
motion
unless
a
as
circuit
appealability.
28
A certificate of appealability
will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
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
Cockrell,
(2000);
(2003).
see
Miller-El
v.
537
U.S.
322,
336-38
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
Bernard has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
2
the
facts
and
We
legal
Appeal: 15-7116
Doc: 12
contentions
are
Filed: 01/13/2016
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?