United States v. Judd

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Judd, 409 F. App'x 719 (4th Cir. 2011)

United States v. Judd

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7591

KEITH RUSSELL JUDD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:10-cv-00734)

Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: January 28, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Russell Judd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Keith Russell Judd seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his “Independent Action for

Relief from Judgment to Correct Record that There is No Federal

Felony Conviction for Keith Russell Judd.” The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(1) (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 Judd has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave

to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished