From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Talik

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Apr 26, 2011
425 F. App'x 235 (4th Cir. 2011)

Opinion

No. 10-7402.

Submitted: April 21, 2011.

Decided: April 26, 2011.

Appeal from the United States District: Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:06-cr-00051-FPS-JFS-1; 5:09-cv-00047-FPS-JFS).

Eugene J. Talik, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hugh McWilliams, Jr., John Castle; Parr, Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Eugene J. Talik, Jr., 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. 2010) motion. 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Talik 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Talik

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Apr 26, 2011
425 F. App'x 235 (4th Cir. 2011)
Case details for

U.S. v. Talik

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene J. TALIK, Jr.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Apr 26, 2011

Citations

425 F. App'x 235 (4th Cir. 2011)

Citing Cases

Talik v. Warden Lewisburg United Statesp

He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The District Court denied his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, see Talik…