Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    United States v. David Huggard, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. The court dismissed an appeal from David Huggard of a district court order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court will not issue a certificate of appealability absent a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Huggard did not make the requisite showing. Therefore, the court denied his motion for appointment of counsel, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. David Huggard, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. The court dismissed an appeal from David Huggard of a district court order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court will not issue a certificate of appealability absent a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Huggard did not make the requisite showing. Therefore, the court denied his motion for appointment of counsel, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-04-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7985

    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 an appeal from David Huggard of a district court order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court will not issue a certificate of appealability absent a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Huggard did not make the requisite showing. Therefore, the court denied his motion for appointment of counsel, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. David Huggard, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. The court dismissed an appeal from David Huggard of a district court order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court will not issue a certificate of appealability absent a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Huggard did not make the requisite showing. Therefore, the court denied his motion for appointment of counsel, 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. 15-7985

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DAVID L. HUGGARD,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge.
    (1:13-cr-00005-JPJ-1; 1:14-cv-80772-JPJ-RSB)

    Submitted:

    April 21, 2016

    Decided:

    April 26, 2016

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    David L. Huggard, Appellant Pro Se.


    Zachary T. Lee, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    David L. Huggard seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012) motion.

    The order

    is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a


    certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

    A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
    2253(c)(2) (2012).

    28 U.S.C.

    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 (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 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
    Huggard has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we deny

    his motion for appointment of counsel, 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 this court and argument would


    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like