Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    United States v. Terry Buck, 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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Terry Lee Buck's appeal of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in district court. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Buck did not make the requisite showing to satisfy the standards for issuing a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, the court denied Buck's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court also dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Terry Buck, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Terry Lee Buck's appeal of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in district court. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Buck did not make the requisite showing to satisfy the standards for issuing a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, the court denied Buck's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court also dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-07-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-6753

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Terry Lee Buck's appeal of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in district court. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Buck did not make the requisite showing to satisfy the standards for issuing a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, the court denied Buck's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court also dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Terry Buck, 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 Terry Lee Buck's appeal of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in district court. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Buck did not make the requisite showing to satisfy the standards for issuing a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, the court denied Buck's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court also dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    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. 14-6753

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    TERRY LEE BUCK,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III,
    Chief District Judge. (4:12-cr-00013-D-3; 4:14-cv-00009-D)

    Submitted:

    July 24, 2014

    Before FLOYD and


    Circuit Judge.

    THACKER,

    Decided:

    Circuit

    Judges,

    and

    July 29, 2014

    DAVIS,

    Senior

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Terry Lee Buck, Appellant Pro Se.


    Jennifer P. May-Parker,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Kimberly Ann Moore, Seth
    Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Terry Lee Buck 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.

    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 Buck has not made the requisite showing.
    deny

    Bucks

    motion

    dismiss the appeal.


    facts

    and

    legal

    for

    certificate

    of

    Accordingly, we

    appealability

    and

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like