US v. Taiwan Cameron, No. 08-7280 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7280 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TAIWAN DAVIDSON CAMERON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00343-JCC-1; 1:07-cv-01268) Submitted: June 1, 2009 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and June 23, 2009 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Taiwan Davidson Cameron, Appellant Pro Se. John C. Lynch, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Andrew McCormack, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Paul Torzilli, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Taiwan Davidson Cameron seeks to appeal the district court s order motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues denying a relief certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent constitutional prisoner a constitutional of substantial right. jurists his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 appealability. (2006) 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable on 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that (2000). demonstrating any district of assessment court is a A that of the 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). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cameron has not made the certificate dispense of with requisite showing. appealability oral argument and Accordingly, dismiss because the the we deny appeal. facts and a We 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.