US v. Yosef Amiel Handy, No. 11-6860 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6860 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. YOSEF AMIEL HANDY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David Schroeder, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00141-TDS-1; 1:11-cv-00159TDS-PTS) Submitted: October 13, 2011 Decided: October 18, 2011 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yosef Amiel Handy, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yosef Amiel Handy seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues on a his 28 certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). issue absent U.S.C.A. a of 2255 (West Supp. appealability. 28 2011) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. § showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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. and conclude that Slack, We have independently reviewed the record Handy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Handy s motion to place case in abeyance, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because 2 the 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.
