CA4 — memorandum disposition

United States v. Snyder, No. 05-7731 — This order is confusing.  The district court denied the § 2255 motion but certified for appeal whether the public-safety exception to Miranda allowed the trial court to admit statements the defendant made concerning the location of a weapon.  The court ruled that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to ask for suppression of the statements.  (That’s not the claim certified for appeal, but both roads lead to the same place.)

CA4 — memorandum dispositions

Williams v. Chapman, No. 08-6357 — The court summarily affirmed the denial of a 2241 petition.

Vines v. Watson, No. 08-6517 — The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiciton an appeal from an order dismissing a 2254 petition and ordering the petitioner to show cause that the petition was not time barred.  The order being appealed was not final, as the petitioner was allowed to explain why his petition should not be subject to the one-year limitations period.

CA4 — more COA denials

The Fourth Circuit issues unusually verbose COA denial orders.  They’re boilerplate, but they’re very long.

They go something like this:

[Petitioner] seeks to appeal the denial of his [2254 petition/2255 motion].  He needs a COA.  This is the legal standard for a COA:  2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676 (4th Cir. 2001).  We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that [petitioner] has not made the requisite showing.  Accordingly, we deny a COA, dispense with oral argument, and dismiss the appeal.

Such a verbose explanation is unnecessary; after all, denying a COA only takes one word — “DENIED.”  The orders seldom explain whether the denial was on the merits or for procedural reasons (a COA is required in either instance).  One assumes the district court also denied a COA, because if the district court had granted one the circuit would have no reason to reconsider the scope of the COA without specifically being asked to do so.

Because these orders contain no legal analysis, I’m going to stop posting them to the blog.  Of course, if one of them is interesting, or if the Fourth Circuit changes its practice, I’ll reevaluate.

CA4 — memorandum decisions

Young v. Johnson, No. 07-6973 — COA denied on the merits of a 2254 petition.

Smith v. Kelly, No. 08-6281 — COA denied on the merits of a 2254 petition.

Ford v. Warden, No. 08-7023 — Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to a late notice of appeal.

U.S. v. Florence, No. 08-7033 — COA denied on the merits of a 2255 motion.

U.S. v. Sehen, No. 08-7050 — COA denied on the merits of a 2255 motion.

CA4 — memorandum decision

Graves v. Chapman, No. 08-6423 (CA4) — The court affirmed the denial of a 2241 habeas petition.

CA4 — memorandum dispositions

Smith v. Governor, No. 08-6078 (CA4) — The district court denied the petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motions because they were the functional equivalent of second or successive habeas petitions.  The Fourth Circuit denied a COA, and denied authorization to file a second or successive petition.

U.S. v. Giron, No. 08-6285 (CA4) — The court denied a COA to appeal the denial of a 2255 motion.

Edwards v. Johnson, No. 08-6372 (CA4) — The court denied a COA to appeal the denial of a 2254 petition.

Thomas v. Johnson, No. 08-6386 (CA4) — The court denied a COA to appeal the denial of a 2254 petition.

Thomas v. Johnson, No. 08-6389 (CA4) — The court denied a COA to appeal the denial of a 2254 petition.

Vannatter v. Bazzle, No. 08-6422 (CA4) — The court denied a COA to appeal the denial of a 2254 petition.

Porter v. Snyder, No. 08-6426 (CA4) — The court affirmed the denial of a 2241 petition for the reasons given by the district court.

U.S. v. Griffith, No. 08-6598 (CA4) — The court denied a COA to appeal the denial of a 2255 motion.

CA4 — memorandum disposition

U.S. v. Alomia-Torres, No. 07-7771 — The court dismissed an appeal in a 2255 case for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed over 18 months after entry of judgment.  The petitioner sought to appeal the recharacterization of his 60(b) motion as a second or successive 2255 motion.

CA4 — memorandum disposition

Jackson v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, No. 08-6200 — The Fourth Circuit denied a COA in an appeal from the denial of a 2241 habeas petition because the petitioner did not demonstrate the denial of a constitutional right as required by Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000).  This ruling strikes me as wrong, because a COA is only required when the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court, or in a 2255 case.  The dispo does not explain why this 2241 case was subject to the COA requirement.