US v. Ramone Ethridge, No. 13-7737 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7737 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RAMONE HAISON ETHRIDGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:10-cr-00206-BO-2; 5:13-cv-00312-BO) Submitted: March 11, 2014 Before FLOYD, Circuit Circuit Judges. Judge, Decided: and HAMILTON and March 21, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ramone Haison Ethridge, Appellant Pro Se. Burnette, Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY, Dennis Michael Duffy, Assistant Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. S. Katherine UNITED STATES United States Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ramone Haison Ethridge seeks to appeal the district court s order motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues denying a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent a constitutional relief on his of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 appealability. (2012) 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. 28 showing U.S.C. of the denial § 2253(c)(2). of When a 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 Ethridge has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ethridge s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 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.
