Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    United States v. Roscoe Abell, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Roscoe Abell's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Abell did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. As such, the court denied Abell's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal. The court found oral arguments were not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Roscoe Abell, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    19 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Roscoe Abell's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Abell did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. As such, the court denied Abell's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal. The court found oral arguments were not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-06-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-6208

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Roscoe Abell's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Abell did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. As such, the court denied Abell's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal. The court found oral arguments were not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Roscoe Abell, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Roscoe Abell's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Abell did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. As such, the court denied Abell's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal. The court found oral arguments were not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    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. 14-6208

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ROSCOE ABELL, a/k/a Scoe, a/k/a Big Bra,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Frank D. Whitney,
    Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00061-FDW-1; 3:12-cv-00277-FDW)

    Submitted:

    May 29, 2014

    Decided:

    June 3, 2014

    Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Roscoe Abell, Appellant Pro Se.


    Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Melissa
    Louise Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Dana Owen
    Washington, Kevin Zolot, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
    Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Roscoe

    Abell

    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

    (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.

    satisfies

    jurists

    would

    of

    the

    v.

    McDaniel,

    Slack

    this

    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 Abell has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we

    deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.


    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    We

    legal

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like