US v. Edwin Harper, No. 09-8018 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8018 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDWIN ALLEN HARPER, a/k/a Eddie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00049-JPB-DJJ-3) Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 22, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edwin Allen Harper, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edwin court s order Allen Harper accepting the seeks to appeal recommendation of the the district magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. justice or The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent constitutional prisoner a satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional 28 this would claims by appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will substantial right. of showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that district (2006). demonstrating any assessment court is of 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 Harper 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.