Narrative Opinion Summary
Thomas Anthony Burress's appeal of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion has been reviewed independently, revealing that he has not demonstrated a substantial showing of a constitutional right's denial. Consequently, the court denies a certificate of appealability and dismisses the appeal, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The court also decides against oral argument, stating that the existing materials sufficiently present the facts and legal issues involved. Additionally, Burress's claim based on Apprendi v. New Jersey is not considered cognizable on collateral review, referencing United States v. Sanders. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Legal Issues Addressed
Denial of Certificate of Appealabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied a certificate of appealability because the appellant failed to demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
Reasoning: Thomas Anthony Burress's appeal of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion has been reviewed independently, revealing that he has not demonstrated a substantial showing of a constitutional right's denial.
Dismissal of Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) due to the appellant's failure to meet the threshold for a certificate of appealability.
Reasoning: Consequently, the court denies a certificate of appealability and dismisses the appeal, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Non-Cognizability of Apprendi Claims on Collateral Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that claims based on Apprendi v. New Jersey are not cognizable on collateral review, referencing precedent set by United States v. Sanders.
Reasoning: Additionally, Burress's claim based on Apprendi v. New Jersey is not considered cognizable on collateral review, referencing United States v. Sanders.
Waiver of Oral Argumentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court decided against holding oral argument, finding the written record adequate to resolve the appeal.
Reasoning: The court also decides against oral argument, stating that the existing materials sufficiently present the facts and legal issues involved.