US v. Arlington Ashley, No. 15-7411 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7411 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ARLINGTON ASHLEY, a/k/a Arlington Efrain Ashley, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:10-cr-00088-RAJ-TEM-1; 4:13-cv-00135-RAJ) Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arlington Ashley, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Arlington Ashley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s § 2255 (2012) motion. 60(b) motion, justice or the order relief on his 28 U.S.C. Because Ashley’s claim presents a true order judge denying issues is a not appealable certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). of unless a circuit appealability. 28 See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397, 400 n.7 (4th Cir. 2015); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 Ashley has not made the requisite showing. 2 Accordingly, we deny a certificate dispense of with contentions are appealability oral argument adequately and dismiss because presented in the the the appeal. 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.
