US v. Michael Turner, No. 13-7578 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7578 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL DAVID TURNER, a/k/a Michael David Bunch, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:07-cr-00040-AWA-TEM-1; 2:12-cv-00468-AWA) Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014 Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael David Turner, Appellant Pro Assistant United States Attorney, Appellee. Se. Benjamin L. Hatch, Norfolk, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael David Turner seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion because Turner failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues or judge a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). of appealability. 28 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) (2012). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Turner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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 this 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.
