US v. William Syke
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00350-LMB-3,1:16-cv-00229-LMB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: W Sykes. [16-7767]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
WILLIAM SYKES, a/k/a Black,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00350-LMB-3; 1:16-cv-00229-LMB)
March 14, 2017
Before FLOYD and
March 17, 2017
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Sykes, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Michael Fitzpatrick,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
William Sykes seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying
his motion for reconsideration.
The orders are not appealable
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
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
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
Sykes has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
Pg: 3 of 3
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?