Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    United States v. Stanley Waddell, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Stanley Leon Waddell sought to appeal a district court order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion as untimely. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that Waddell did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's dismissal of the motion debatable or wrong, or that his motion stated a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Therefore, the court denied the certificate and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Stanley Waddell, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Stanley Leon Waddell sought to appeal a district court order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion as untimely. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that Waddell did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's dismissal of the motion debatable or wrong, or that his motion stated a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Therefore, the court denied the certificate and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-02-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-7202

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Stanley Leon Waddell sought to appeal a district court order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion as untimely. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that Waddell did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's dismissal of the motion debatable or wrong, or that his motion stated a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Therefore, the court denied the certificate and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    5 views3 pages

    United States v. Stanley Waddell, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Stanley Leon Waddell sought to appeal a district court order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion as untimely. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that Waddell did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's dismissal of the motion debatable or wrong, or that his motion stated a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Therefore, the court denied the certificate and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-7202

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    STANLEY LEON WADDELL,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
    N. Carlton Tilley,
    Jr., Senior District Judge.
    (1:05-cr-00347-NCT-1; 1:08-cv00349-NCT-WWD)

    Submitted:

    February 9, 2012

    Decided:

    February 14, 2012

    Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Stanley Leon Waddell, Appellant Pro Se.


    Robert Michael
    Hamilton,
    Angela
    Hewlett
    Miller,
    Assistant
    United
    States
    Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Stanley
    courts

    order

    Leon

    Waddell

    accepting

    the

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    recommendation

    of

    the
    the

    district

    magistrate

    judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West


    Supp.

    2011)

    motion.

    The

    order

    is

    not

    appealable

    unless

    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.


    28

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1)(B)

    (2006).

    certificate

    of

    appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of


    the denial of a constitutional right.
    (2006).

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2)

    When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

    prisoner

    satisfies

    this

    jurists

    would

    reasonable

    standard
    find

    by

    that

    demonstrating

    the

    district

    that

    courts

    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).
    denies

    relief

    demonstrate

    on

    both

    procedural

    that

    the

    When the district court

    grounds,

    dispositive

    the

    prisoner

    procedural

    must

    ruling

    is

    debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the


    denial of a constitutional right.
    We

    have

    independently

    reviewed

    the

    Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.


    record

    Waddell has not made the requisite showing.

    and

    conclude

    that

    Accordingly, we

    deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.


    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    We

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like