United States v. Young

229 F. App'x 211
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Young. Read the opinion of the Court — 100 F. App'x 214
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 15, 2007·No. 06-8042, 06-8056, 06-8058·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, Ruthven Young, Don Anthony Guerra, and Ash-berth Sherran Guerra seek to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on their 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motions and their motions for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap *212 pealability. 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that the movants have not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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

United States v. Young, 229 F. App'x 211 (4th Cir. 2007).

229 F. App'x 211 (United States v. Young) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Rose v. Lee
252 F.3d 676 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)