US v. Gregory Osborne, No. 10-6282 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6282 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GREGORY ALLEN OSBORNE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00057-jct-mfu-1; 1:09-cv-80146-jct) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 2, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Allen Osborne, COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY S Appellee. Appellant OFFICE, Pro Se. Dennis H. Tazewell, Virginia, Lee, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gregory Allen Osborne seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack, We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Osborne has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we appealability, deny deny dismiss the appeal. facts and legal Osborne s leave to motion proceed for in a forma certificate of pauperis, and We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
