Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    United States v. Julius Underhill, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Julius Ervin Underhill sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Underhill did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. As a result, the appeals court denied Underhill's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Julius Underhill, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Julius Ervin Underhill sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Underhill did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. As a result, the appeals court denied Underhill's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-12-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-7255

    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 court case in which Julius Ervin Underhill sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Underhill did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. As a result, the appeals court denied Underhill's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Julius Underhill, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Julius Ervin Underhill sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Underhill did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. As a result, the appeals court denied Underhill's request for a certificate of appealability 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. 12-7255

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JULIUS ERVIN UNDERHILL, a/k/a Devin Michael Hightower, a/k/a
    E,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.
    Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
    (4:08-cr-00056-TLW-1; 4:12-cv-00844-TLW)

    Submitted:

    November 20, 2012

    Decided:

    December 6, 2012

    Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Julius Ervin Underhill, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker


    Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Julius Ervin Underhill seeks to appeal the district
    courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West
    Supp.

    2012)

    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.

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

    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude


    that Underhill has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly,

    we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.


    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

    You might also like