US v. Ernest Darcus, Jr.


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion. A certificate of appealability is denied. Originating case number: 3:07-cr-00418-REP-RCY-1, 3:12-cv-00840-REP-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999939750]. Mailed to: Ernest Carl Darcus, Jr. [15-7886]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-7886 Doc: 22 Filed: 10/03/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7886 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ERNEST CARL DARCUS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cr-00418-REP-RCY-1; 3:12-cv-00840-REPRCY) Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 3, 2016 Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ernest Carl Darcus, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-7886 Doc: 22 Filed: 10/03/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Ernest Carl Darcus, § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a of U.S.C. district § 2255 appealability. 28 (2012) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” 28 the The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or certificate his appeal motion. a on to order issues relief seeks court’s judge denying Jr., showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). of a 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 Darcus 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: 15-7886 Doc: 22 contentions are Filed: 10/03/2016 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?