The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
03-6009•United States of America v. Claude Gerald Dennis, a/k/a G-Man, a/k/a Jerry, a/k/a Jerry Lubin
03-6009Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 5, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CLAUDE GERALD DENNIS, a/k/a G-Man, a/k/a
Jerry, a/k/a Jerry Lubin,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CR-96-66, CA-01-695-3)
Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: May 5, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claude Gerald Dennis, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller,
David John Novak, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Claude Gerald Dennis seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order denying a
motion under § 2255 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 for claims addressed by
a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dennis
has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123
S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003).
Accordingly, we 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.