Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
03-7739•United States of America v. Alvin Wayne Hardesty, Jr
03-7739Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit22.06.2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7739
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALVIN WAYNE HARDESTY, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-98-299; CA-03-2246-AW)
Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 22, 2004
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alvin Wayne Hardesty, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Odessa Palmer
Jackson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Alvin Wayne Hardesty, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and denying his motion for
reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Hardesty has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny Hardesty’s motion for 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 the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.