US v. Michael Harmon, No. 13-7908 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7908 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MICHAEL TRACY HARMON, Defendant Appellant, and ERIC WILSON, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:99-cr-00023-RBS-13; 2:13-cv-00454-RBS-LRL) Submitted: April 21, 2014 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. FLOYD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and May 1, 2014 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Tracy Harmon, Appellant Pro Se. V. Kathleen Dougherty, Joseph Kosky, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Michael court s order Tracy denying Harmon relief seeks on his to 28 appeal U.S.C. the district § 2241 (2012) petition, which the court correctly treated as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. a circuit justice appealability. or The order is not appealable unless judge issues a certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2012). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must 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 Harmon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because 3 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4
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.
