United States v. Dennis

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 5, 2003
Docket03-6009
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Dennis (United States v. Dennis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Dennis, (4th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). 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

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

Related

Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Dennis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-dennis-ca4-2003.