US v. Damian Murphy, No. 11-6382 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6382 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DAMIAN ANTONIO MURPHY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00062-jpj-1; 1:10-cv-80236-jpj-mfu) Submitted: September 15, 2011 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. KING, Circuit Decided: Judges, and October 12, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Damian Antonio Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Damian Antonio Murphy seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion and denying reconsideration. not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice or The orders are judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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 district debatable that court s or reasonable assessment wrong. Slack jurists would of the v. McDaniel, find that claims constitutional 529 U.S. the 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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at the 484-85. conclude We that Accordingly, we have Murphy deny independently has not Murphy s reviewed made motion appealability and dismiss the appeal. the for record requisite a and showing. certificate of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 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.
