Willie Branch v. Justin Andrews, No. 14-7549 (4th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7549 WILLIE BRANCH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JUSTIN F. ANDREWS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:14-hc-02007-BO) Submitted: December 16, 2014 Before DUNCAN Circuit Judge. and DIAZ, Circuit Decided: Judges, December 19, 2014 and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Branch, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Willie Branch, a prisoner in custody under a sentence imposed by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, which the district court also construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice or The order is judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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 procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a constitutional right. debatable claim of the denial of a Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Branch has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Branch’s motions for transcript at government expense and for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 2 because the facts and 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.