Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    United States v. Hairston, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr. sought to appeal a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the case, finding that Hairston did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, the appeals court found that Hairston did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of Hairston's constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Hairston, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr. sought to appeal a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the case, finding that Hairston did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, the appeals court found that Hairston did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of Hairston's constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-05-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6129

    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 Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr. sought to appeal a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the case, finding that Hairston did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, the appeals court found that Hairston did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of Hairston's constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    6 views2 pages

    United States v. Hairston, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr. sought to appeal a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the case, finding that Hairston did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, the appeals court found that Hairston did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of Hairston's constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-6129

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, SR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
    District Judge. (3:00-cr-00024-WCB; 3:06-cv-123)

    Submitted: May 10, 2007

    Decided:

    May 14, 2007

    Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. David Earl Godwin,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia; Thomas
    Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., seeks to appeal the district
    courts

    order

    accepting

    the

    report

    and

    recommendation

    of

    magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000)


    motion.
    judge

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or


    issues

    certificate

    of

    appealability.

    28

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).

    A prisoner satisfies this

    standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that


    any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court
    is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.

    Miller-El v. Cockrell,

    537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have

    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hairston 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 the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like