United States v. Legette

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Legette

507 F. App'x 322

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 25, 2013

DocketNo. 12-7668

StatusPublished

This text of 507 F. App'x 322 (United States v. Legette) 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. Legette, 507 F. App'x 322 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Andre Legette seeks to appeal the district court’s orders (1) denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion; and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the district court’s denial of Legette’s § 3582(c)(2) motion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders in part for the reasons stated by the district court. Legette v. United States, No. 4:09-cr-01370-TLW-1, 2012 WL 3637859 (D.S.C. Aug. 22, 2012 & Sept. 18, 2012).

The district court’s orders denying relief on Legette’s § 2255 motion and denying reconsideration are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Legette has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in part. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.

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

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Andre Legette seeks to appeal the district court’s orders (1) denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion; and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the district court’s denial of Legette’s § 3582(c)(2) motion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders in part for the reasons stated by the district court. Legette v. United States, No. 4:09-cr-01370-TLW-1, 2012 WL 3637859 (D.S.C. Aug. 22, 2012 & Sept. 18, 2012).

The district court’s orders denying relief on Legette’s § 2255 motion and denying reconsideration are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Legette has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in part. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

507 F. App'x 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-legette-ca4-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack