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)
04-7228•Jerry Saunders, a/k/a Jerry Sanders v. Bureau of Prisons
04-7228Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 11, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7228
JERRY SAUNDERS, a/k/a Jerry Sanders,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
BUREAU OF PRISONS; SUPERINTENDENT, FEDERAL
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION MIAMI,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-93-34; CA-04-275-3)
Submitted: November 19, 2004 Decided: January 11, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry Saunders, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Saunders, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his petition characterized
as a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is
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 Saunders has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. Furthermore, we deny Saunders’ motion for default judgment
filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a)(b)(2). 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.