US v. Terrence Newkirk, No. 08-7243 (4th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7243 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRENCE EUGENE NEWKIRK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00027-JBF-TEM-1; 2:07-cv-00277-JBF) Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 23, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrence Eugene Newkirk, Appellant Tayman, Assistant United States Virginia, for Appellee. Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Attorney, Newport News, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terrence Eugene Newkirk seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his motions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). appealability will not issue absent A a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard § by 2253(c)(2) (2000). demonstrating that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). conclude that We have Newkirk Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before independently has deny not a made reviewed the certificate the record requisite of and showing. appealability and We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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.