Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    United States v. Daniels, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of United States v. Jimmie Craig Daniels. The court dismissed Daniels' appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and motion to amend. The court determined that Daniels did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Daniels, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of United States v. Jimmie Craig Daniels. The court dismissed Daniels' appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and motion to amend. The court determined that Daniels did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-12-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6748

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of United States v. Jimmie Craig Daniels. The court dismissed Daniels' appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and motion to amend. The court determined that Daniels did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Daniels, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of United States v. Jimmie Craig Daniels. The court dismissed Daniels' appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and motion to amend. The court determined that Daniels did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Therefore, the court denied 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. 10-6748

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    JIMMIE CRAIG DANIELS,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
    (4:07-cr-00341-RBH-1; 4:09-cv-70078-RBH)

    Submitted:

    November 18, 2010

    Before SHEDD and


    Circuit Judge.

    AGEE,

    Circuit

    Decided:

    Judges,

    and

    December 6, 2010

    HAMILTON,

    Senior

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jimmie Craig Daniels, Appellant Pro Se.


    William E. Day, II,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jimmie

    Craig

    Daniels

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West


    Supp. 2010) motion and denying his motion to amend.

    The order

    is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a


    certificate of appealability.
    certificate

    of

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006).

    appealability

    will

    not

    issue

    absent

    A
    a

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).
    relief

    on

    the

    demonstrating
    district
    debatable

    merits,
    that

    courts
    or

    When the district court denies

    prisoner

    reasonable

    assessment

    wrong.

    Slack

    satisfies

    jurists

    this

    would

    of

    the

    v.

    McDaniel,

    standard

    find

    constitutional
    529

    U.S.

    by

    that

    the

    claims

    is

    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

    debatable

    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    Slack, 529 U.S.

    at

    the

    484-85.

    conclude

    that

    We

    have

    Daniels

    independently
    has

    not

    made

    reviewed
    the

    record

    requisite

    and

    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

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like