From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Pheasant

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 22, 2013
518 F. App'x 226 (4th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 12-7978

04-22-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMUEL EDDIE PHEASANT, Defendant - Appellant.

Samuel Eddie Pheasant, Appellant Pro Se. Donald David Gast, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Jennifer A. Youngs, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (2:06-cr-00025-MR-DLH-1; 2:09-cv-00046-MR) Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Eddie Pheasant, Appellant Pro Se. Donald David Gast, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Jennifer A. Youngs, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Samuel Eddie Pheasant 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 Pheasant 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. Pheasant

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 22, 2013
518 F. App'x 226 (4th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Pheasant

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMUEL EDDIE PHEASANT…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 22, 2013

Citations

518 F. App'x 226 (4th Cir. 2013)

Citing Cases

Pheasant v. Antonelli

See United States v. Pheasant, 518 Fed.Appx. 226, 227 (4th Cir. 2013). The Fourth Circuit dismissed…

Pheasant v. Antonelli

The petitioner appealed, and the Fourth Circuit dismissed his appeal. United States of Am. v. Pheasant,…