US v. Orion Harden, No. 09-7758 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7758 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ORION ROSS HARDEN, a/k/a Clyde Ross Hardin, a/k/a Martel Ross Harden, a/k/a Fillgoode Smith, a/k/a Orion Matel, a/k/a Ronald Blackwell, a/k/a Martell Smith, a/k/a Monte Williams, a/k/a Norman Simmons, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge.(3:97-cr-70099-jct-mfu-1; 3:08-cv-800820-jct-mfu) Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 24, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Orion Ross Harden, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Orion Ross Harden seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 2009) motion and his motion for reconsideration. not appealable unless a circuit certificate of The orders are issues a A appealability will not or Supp. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). certificate of appealability. justice (West judge issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard § 2253(c)(2) by (2006). 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 record and showing. Cir. 2001). conclude We that have Harden independently has not made reviewed the the requisite Accordingly, we deny 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 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.
