Smith v. United States

Docket 3:21-cv-00248

Filed
2021-05-28
Terminated
2022-06-06
Case type
cv

Outcome

other dismissal

FJC civil IDB DISTRICT=78 OFFICE=3 DOCKET=2100248 FILEDATE=05/28/2021 DISP=14, PROCPROG=4, JUDGMENT=0; codebook: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/idb/codebooks/Civil%20Codebook%201988%20Forward%2010252023.pdf

Outcome source

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F | L E D FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 24 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-15881 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 3:21-cv-00248-HDM 3:15-cr-00061-HDM-WGC-2 V. District of Nevada, Reno EDWARD SMITH, AKA Smitty, ORDER Defendant-Appellant. Before: SILVERMAN and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. This appeal is from the denial of appellant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and subsequent Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. The request for a certificate of appealability (Docket Entry Nos. 6 & 13) is denied because appellant has not shown that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the [§ 2255 motion] states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct 1n its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also 28 USS.C. § 2253(c)(2); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); United States v. Winkles, 795 F.3d 1134, 1143 (9th Cir. 2015). Any pending motions are denied as moot. DENIED.

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.