Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    United States v. Alvita Gunn, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a defendant (Alvita Karen Gunn) seeking to appeal the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Gunn did not make a substantial showing that she was denied a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Gunn did not satisfy the standards for issuing a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the court denied the certificate, denied Gunn's motion for bail or release pending appeal, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Alvita Gunn, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    15 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a defendant (Alvita Karen Gunn) seeking to appeal the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Gunn did not make a substantial showing that she was denied a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Gunn did not satisfy the standards for issuing a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the court denied the certificate, denied Gunn's motion for bail or release pending appeal, and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-04-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7871

    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 from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a defendant (Alvita Karen Gunn) seeking to appeal the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Gunn did not make a substantial showing that she was denied a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Gunn did not satisfy the standards for issuing a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the court denied the certificate, denied Gunn's motion for bail or release pending appeal, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Alvita Gunn, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a defendant (Alvita Karen Gunn) seeking to appeal the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Gunn did not make a substantial showing that she was denied a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Gunn did not satisfy the standards for issuing a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the court denied the certificate, denied Gunn's motion for bail or release pending appeal, 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. 14-7871

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ALVITA KAREN GUNN,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
    (8:09-cr-00213-RWT-4; 8:14-cv-00167-RWT)

    Submitted:

    April 23, 2015

    Decided:

    April 28, 2015

    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Alvita Karen Gunn, Appellant Pro Se. Bryan E. Foreman, Lindsay


    Eyler Kaplan, Christen Anne Sproule, Assistant United States
    Attorneys, Adam Kenneth Ake, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Alvita

    Karen

    Gunn

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts

    order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012) motion.

    The

    order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues


    a

    certificate

    (2012).

    of

    appealability.

    28

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1)(B)

    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) (2012).
    relief

    on

    the

    demonstrating
    district

    merits,
    that

    courts

    debatable

    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

    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    debatable

    Slack, 529 U.S.

    at 484-85.
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
    Gunn has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we deny a

    certificate of appealability, deny Gunns motion for bail or


    release pending appeal, 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