Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    United States v. Albert Charles Burgess, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. The court dismissed Albert Burgess's appeal of a district court order that dismissed his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court will not issue a certificate of appealability absent a substantial showing that a constitutional right has been denied. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Burgess did not make this requisite showing. 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. Albert Charles Burgess, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. The court dismissed Albert Burgess's appeal of a district court order that dismissed his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court will not issue a certificate of appealability absent a substantial showing that a constitutional right has been denied. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Burgess did not make this requisite showing. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-05-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-6347

    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. The court dismissed Albert Burgess's appeal of a district court order that dismissed his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court will not issue a certificate of appealability absent a substantial showing that a constitutional right has been denied. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Burgess did not make this requisite showing. 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
    10 views3 pages

    United States v. Albert Charles Burgess, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. The court dismissed Albert Burgess's appeal of a district court order that dismissed his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court will not issue a certificate of appealability absent a substantial showing that a constitutional right has been denied. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Burgess did not make this requisite showing. 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
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-6347

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ALBERT CHARLES BURGESS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
    Graham C. Mullen,
    Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00017-GCM-DLH-1; 1:12-cv-00375GCM)

    Submitted:

    May 19, 2015

    Decided:

    May 22, 2015

    Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


    Thomas Richard
    Ascik, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys,
    Asheville, North Carolina; Kimlani M. Ford, Cortney Randall,
    Edward R. Ryan, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlotte,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
    courts orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012) motions.
    The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues

    certificate

    2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
    issue

    absent

    of

    appealability.

    U.S.C.

    A certificate of appealability will not

    substantial

    constitutional right.

    28

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).

    of

    When the

    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies


    this

    standard

    by

    demonstrating

    that

    reasonable

    jurists

    would

    find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional


    claims is debatable or wrong.

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

    484

    Cockrell,

    (2000);

    (2003).

    see

    Miller-El

    v.

    537

    U.S.

    322,

    336-38

    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 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
    Burgess has not made the requisite showing.
    deny

    certificate

    We dispense

    with

    of

    oral

    appealability
    argument

    and

    because

    Accordingly, we

    dismiss
    the

    the

    facts

    appeal.

    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