US v. David Rich, No. 14-6789 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6789 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID RICH, a/k/a Oakie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00438-WDQ-1; 1:12-cv-03226-WDQ) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Before FLOYD and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: Circuit Judges, and July 29, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Rich, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, James Thomas Wallner, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Rich seeks to appeal the district court s order denying in part his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. * The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. * The district court granted Rich s motion in part and resentenced him. Rich appealed the sentence imposed by the district court, and we affirmed. United States v. Rich, F. App x , 2014 WL 2958806 (4th Cir. July 2, 2014) (No. 134867). 2 We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rich has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal 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.
