US v. Dickinson Adionser, No. 10-6928 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6928 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DICKINSON NORMAN ADIONSER, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:03-cr-00081-HCM-JEB-1; 2:10-cv-00085HCM-DEM) Submitted: March 15, 2011 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. WYNN, Circuit Decided: Judges, and March 17, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dickinson Norman Adionser, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, Laura Pellatiro Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dickinson Norman Adionser seeks to appeal the district court s order denying Adionser permission to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable judge unless a circuit certificate of issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). certificate of appealability. justice A appealability will or not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. satisfies jurists would of the v. McDaniel, Slack this standard find that is 473, U.S. the claims constitutional 529 by 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at the 484-85. conclude We that have independently Adionser has not reviewed made the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed dispense in with forma pauperis, oral argument and dismiss because 2 the the appeal. facts and We legal 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.
