US v. Howard Hudson, No. 09-6104 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6104 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. HOWARD CHARLES HUDSON, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Boss, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00156-JEB: 2:08-cv-00404-HCM) Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 8, 2009 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Howard Charles Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Howard Charles Hudson seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The orders are 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 prisoner reasonable right. satisfies jurists constitutional 28 this would claims by U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) standard find the by that any district (2006). demonstrating assessment court is A that of debatable the 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 Hudson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. for appointment of counsel and We also deny Hudson s motion 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.