No. 18-7048
Jimmy Lawrence Nance v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: buck-v-davis certificate-of-appealability constitutional-rights due-process extraordinary-circumstances fourth-circuit habeas-corpus slack-v-mcdaniel
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-01-18
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in denying a certificate of appealability
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED oo WHETHER THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ‘DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY BY FAILING .TO~° ASSES THE _ EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED IN THIS CASE THAT ; DEMONSTRATE NANCE HAS MADE A THRESHOLD SHOWING OF THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND THAT JURISTS OF REASON COULD DISAGREE WITH THE COURT'S RESOLUTION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS .AS ARTICULATED IN THIS COURT'S SLACK V. MCDANIEL, 529 U.S. 473, 484-485 (2000) AND BUCK V. DAVIS 137 S.Ct. 759 (2017) DECISIONS? 1.
Docket Entries
2019-01-22
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
2019-01-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/18/2019.
2018-12-26
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-12-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 16, 2019)
Attorneys
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent