United States v. Burton ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-6497
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DUANE MONTRIK BURTON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-00-105, CA-02-182-7-F)
    Submitted:   June 12, 2003                 Decided:   June 19, 2003
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Duane Montrik Burton, Appellant Pro Se.   Michael Gordon James,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Duane Montrik Burton seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000).   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   his
    constitutional   claims   are   debatable     and    that   any    dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
    wrong.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    123 S. Ct. 1029
    , 1040 (2003);
    Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    534 U.S. 941
     (2001).               We have
    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Burton 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-6497

Judges: Widener, Luttig, Shedd

Filed Date: 6/19/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024