# United States v. Randolph

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 29, 2007 · 222 F. App'x 298

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1022121

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vernell Brown RANDOLPH, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 29, 2007
- **Citations:** 222 F. App'x 298
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Widener, Wilkinson, Hamilton
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1022121

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7966

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

VERNELL BROWN RANDOLPH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman,
District Judge. (4:04-cr-00024-JBF; 4:06-cv-00007-JBF)

Submitted: March 22, 2007 Decided: March 29, 2007

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vernell Brown Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Vernell Brown Randolph seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Randolph has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 2 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1022121. Public record. Not legal advice.