US v. Shawn Swinson, Sr., No. 10-6917 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: <
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6917 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SHAWN DEION SWINSON, SR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:09-cv-00105-JRS; 3:06-cr-00001-JRS-1) Submitted: June 1, 2011 Decided: June 10, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shawn Deion Swinson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Olivia L. Norman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shawn Deion Swinson, Sr. 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 Swinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Swinson s motions for appeal, to reconsider this court s previous order denying his motion for transcripts, and to expedite the decision. oral argument because the facts 2 and legal We dispense with contentions are 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.
