US v. Arlington Ashley


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:10-cr-00088-RAJ-TEM-1,4:13-cv-00135-RAJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999723165]. Mailed to: Arlington Ashley. [15-7411]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-7411 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7411 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ARLINGTON ASHLEY, a/k/a Arlington Efrain Ashley, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:10-cr-00088-RAJ-TEM-1; 4:13-cv-00135-RAJ) Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arlington Ashley, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-7411 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Arlington Ashley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s § 2255 (2012) motion. 60(b) motion, justice or the order relief on his 28 U.S.C. Because Ashley’s claim presents a true order judge denying issues is a not appealable certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). of unless a circuit appealability. 28 See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397, 400 n.7 (4th Cir. 2015); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 Ashley has not made the requisite showing. 2 Accordingly, we deny Appeal: 15-7411 a Doc: 9 Filed: 12/22/2015 certificate dispense of with contentions are Pg: 3 of 3 appealability oral argument adequately and dismiss because presented in the the the appeal. facts We and legal 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?