US v. David Huggard
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999788641-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00005-JPJ-1,1:14-cv-80772-JPJ-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999804353]. Mailed to: David L. Huggard. [15-7985]
Appeal: 15-7985
Doc: 7
Filed: 04/26/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7985
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID L. HUGGARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge.
(1:13-cr-00005-JPJ-1; 1:14-cv-80772-JPJ-RSB)
Submitted:
April 21, 2016
Decided:
April 26, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David L. Huggard, Appellant Pro Se.
Zachary T. Lee, Assistant
United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-7985
Doc: 7
Filed: 04/26/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
David L. Huggard 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
Huggard has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
his motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of
appealability, and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
Appeal: 15-7985
Doc: 7
Filed: 04/26/2016
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?