From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Peoples

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Mar 1, 2013
512 F. App'x 376 (4th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 12-7897

03-01-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIE PEOPLES, Defendant - Appellant.

Willie Peoples, Appellant Pro Se. Sujit Raman, Assistant United States Attorney, Stephen Schenning, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00423-BEL-1; 1:10-cv-00212-BEL) Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Peoples, Appellant Pro Se. Sujit Raman, Assistant United States Attorney, Stephen Schenning, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Willie Peoples seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Peoples 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED


Summaries of

United States v. Peoples

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Mar 1, 2013
512 F. App'x 376 (4th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Peoples

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIE PEOPLES…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 1, 2013

Citations

512 F. App'x 376 (4th Cir. 2013)

Citing Cases

Whitehead v. United States

Under Paragraph (1) of Subsection 2255(f), Petitioner's one-year period for filing his Section 2255 Motion…

Perry v. United States

Under Paragraph (1) of Subsection 2255(f), Petitioner's one-year period for filing his Section 2255 Motion…