US v. Charles Pyne, No. 15-6061 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6061 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES PYNE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:04-cr-00018-DKC-3) Submitted: August 10, 2015 Decided: December 11, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Pyne, Appellant Assistant United States Appellee. Pro Se. Attorney, Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Pyne seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his July 23, 2014 motion for reconsideration of the court’s August 30, 2007 order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and March 27, 2014 order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3) motion. a circuit justice appealability. or The order is not appealable unless judge issues a certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” (2012). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must 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 Pyne has not made the requisite showing. certificate of We dispense with appealability oral argument 2 and because Accordingly, we deny a dismiss the the facts appeal. 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.
