From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Huddleston

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 30, 2013
520 F. App'x 189 (4th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 13-6075

04-30-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SIDNEY EDWARD HUDDLESTON, III, a/k/a Eddy, a/k/a Sidney E. Huddleston, III, Defendant - Appellant.

Sidney Edward Huddleston, III, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Grimes Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, Chief District Judge. (3:10-cr-00042-1; 3:11-cv-00403) Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sidney Edward Huddleston, III, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Grimes Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Sidney Edward Huddleston, III, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Huddleston 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. Huddleston

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 30, 2013
520 F. App'x 189 (4th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Huddleston

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SIDNEY EDWARD…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 30, 2013

Citations

520 F. App'x 189 (4th Cir. 2013)