US v. Don Eddlon Knox, No. 11-7029 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Unpublished opinion after submission on briefs: Dismissed
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7029 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DON EDDLON KNOX, a/k/a D, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:97-cr-00262-REP-11; 3:11-cv-00440-REP) Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 23, 2011 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Don Eddlon Knox, Appellant Pro Se. James Brien Comey, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia; John Staige Davis, V, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Don Eddlon Knox seeks to appeal the district court s order construing in part his Motion for Relief Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582[,] 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2201, 2202 and Appendix, as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate (2006). of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) 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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at the 484-85. conclude that We have Knox 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 * To the extent Knox appeals the district court s denial of his motions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2201, 2201 (2006), we find no reversible error and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 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.
