Evans v. Daniels

D.C. Circuit

Evans v. Daniels

365 F. App'x 224

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 4, 2010

DocketNo. 10-5007

StatusPublished

This text of 365 F. App'x 224 (Evans v. Daniels) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Evans v. Daniels, 365 F. App'x 224 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

[225]*225 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the motion for a certificate of appealability and for summary reversal, it is

ORDERED that the motion for certificate of appealability be denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Because appellant has not made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), no certificate of appealability is warranted. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Appellant may not challenge his District of Columbia conviction in federal court unless his remedy under D.C.Code § 23-110(g) is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See, e.g., Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1042-43 (D.C.Cir.1998). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary reversal be dismissed as moot.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. Because no certificate of appealability has been allowed, no mandate will issue.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[225]*225 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the motion for a certificate of appealability and for summary reversal, it is

ORDERED that the motion for certificate of appealability be denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Because appellant has not made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), no certificate of appealability is warranted. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Appellant may not challenge his District of Columbia conviction in federal court unless his remedy under D.C.Code § 23-110(g) is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See, e.g., Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1042-43 (D.C.Cir.1998). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary reversal be dismissed as moot.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. Because no certificate of appealability has been allowed, no mandate will issue.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

365 F. App'x 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-daniels-cadc-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack