US v. Michael Featherstun, No. 11-6054 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6054 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL ROBERT FEATHERSTUN, a/k/a Big Country, a/k/a Mike, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00021-JCC-3) Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 6, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Robert Featherstun, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Robert Featherstun seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. unless a circuit appealability. justice or The order is not appealable judge issues a certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. We have independently reviewed the Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. record and Featherstun has not made the requisite showing. conclude that Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny we Featherstun s dispense with motion oral for argument appointment because 2 the of counsel facts and 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.
