Bruce Void-El v. James Cro, No. 10-7072 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7072 BRUCE EVERETT VOID-EL, Petitioner Appellant, v. JAMES CROSS, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:10-CV-00007-IMK-DJJ) Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 18, 2011 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Everett Void-El, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bruce Everett Void-El, a prisoner in federal custody serving a sentence imposed by the District of Columbia, seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition. unless a circuit appealability. United States 2002). justice or The order is not appealable judge issues a certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); see Madley v. Parole Comm n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1310 (D.C. Cir. 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). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court s or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find that U.S. the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at the 484-85. conclude that We have Void-El independently has not made reviewed the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 2 the appeal. We 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 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.
