Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    United States v. McLean, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Cleveland McLean Jr. appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as successive. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied McLean a certificate of appealability, finding he did not make the requisite showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court also denied McLean's request to file a successive § 2255 motion. The appeal was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. McLean, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views3 pages
    Cleveland McLean Jr. appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as successive. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied McLean a certificate of appealability, finding he did not make the requisite showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court also denied McLean's request to file a successive § 2255 motion. The appeal was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-10-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7031

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cleveland McLean Jr. appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as successive. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied McLean a certificate of appealability, finding he did not make the requisite showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court also denied McLean's request to file a successive § 2255 motion. The appeal was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. McLean, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Cleveland McLean Jr. appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as successive. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied McLean a certificate of appealability, finding he did not make the requisite showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court also denied McLean's request to file a successive § 2255 motion. The appeal was dismissed.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 04-7031

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CLEVELAND MCLEAN, JR., a/k/a Junior, a/k/a
    June,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
    Robert G. Doumar, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-90-105)

    Submitted:

    October 14, 2004

    Decided:

    October 21, 2004

    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Cleveland McLean, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Cleveland McLean, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
    courts order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion as
    successive.

    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

    2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a


    certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by


    a district court absent a substantial showing of the denial of a
    constitutional right.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000).

    A prisoner

    satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists


    would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that
    any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
    debatable or wrong.

    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

    (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
    252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have independently reviewed

    the record and conclude that McClean has not made the requisite
    showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
    leave to proceed in forma pauperis, grant McLeans motions to
    supplement, deny his motion for default, and dismiss the appeal.
    To the extent that McLeans notice of appeal and appellate brief
    could

    be

    construed

    as

    motion

    for

    authorization

    successive 2255 motion, we deny authorization.

    to

    file

    See United

    States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), cert.
    denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003).

    We dispense with oral argument

    - 2 -

    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in


    the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 3 -

    You might also like