On appeal from The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond ">

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 01-02-2022

Case Style:

United States of America v. Dwane Washington a/k/a Cisco

Case Number: 18-6016

Judge: Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion

Court:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
On appeal from The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office

Defendant's Attorney:


Richmond, VA - Best Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory


Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.


Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement


Counselor:

MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.

MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge


Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800

Description:

Richmond, VA - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant appealing the district court’s order denying relief claim.



Dwane Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012).
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.

Outcome: We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Washington has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: