US v. Cedric Newsome, No. 08-6785 (4th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6785 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CEDRIC TYLER NEWSOME, a/k/a Red, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:04-cr-00093-RAJ-JEB-1; 2:06-cv-00165-RAJ-JEB) Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 11, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cedric Tyler Newsome, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cedric Tyler Newsome seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order and a subsequent order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. unless a circuit appealability. justice The orders are not appealable or judge issues a certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 68384 (4th Cir. 2001). conclude that Accordingly, we We have independently reviewed the record and Newsome deny has not Newsome s made motion appealability and dismiss the appeal. the for requisite a showing. certificate of 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 - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.