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)
08-8136•United States of America v. Donovan Cunningham, a/k/a Roger
08-8136Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 3, 2009
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8136
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONOVAN CUNNINGHAM, a/k/a Roger,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:05-cr-00261-WDQ; 1:07−cv−3434−WDQ)
Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 3, 2009
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donovan Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se. Philip S. Jackson, Allen
F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Donovan Cunningham seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2008) motion and summarily denying his subsequent Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e) 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district
court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural
ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El
v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th
Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Cunningham has not made the requisite showing.
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.