US v. Bobbie Edward


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed denying Motion for certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999862096-2]. Originating case number: 4:11-cr-00055-AWA-DEM-10, 4:14-cv-00050-AWA. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999992596]. Mailed to: Bobbie Edwards. [16-6763]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6763 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6763 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BOBBIE RAY EDWARDS, a/k/a Tank, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:11-cr-00055-AWA-DEM-10; 4:14-cv-00050-AWA) Submitted: December 14, 2016 Decided: December 22, 2016 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobbie Ray Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia; Dee Mullarkey Sterling, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-6763 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Bobbie Ray Edwards 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 (2012). of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) 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). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court’s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Edwards has not made the requisite showing. deny Edwards’ motion dismiss the appeal. facts and legal for a certificate of Accordingly, we appealability and We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 adequately presented in the Appeal: 16-6763 Doc: 7 materials before Filed: 12/22/2016 this court Pg: 3 of 3 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?