US v. Richard Hudson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for leave to supplement informal brief [1000072935-2]. Originating case number: 3:03-cr-00028-MR-1,3:16-cv-00560-MR. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000112972]. Mailed to: Richard Hudson. [17-6106]

Appeal: 17-6106

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/06/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6106

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD DOYLE HUDSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00028-MR-1; 3:16-cv-00560MR)

Submitted: June 15, 2017

Decided: July 6, 2017

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Doyle Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani M. Ford, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6106

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/06/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Richard Doyle Hudson 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.” 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 (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 Hudson has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We deny Hudson’s motion for leave to supplement his informal brief.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

2