US v. Henry Pipkins, Jr., No. 08-7746 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7746 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HENRY RENALDO PIPKINS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00058-JBF-JEB-3; 4:08-cv-00066-JBF) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 21, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Renaldo Pipkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jessica M. Norris, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Henry Renaldo Pipkins, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. justice or The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 (2000). 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 Pipkins 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.