United States v. Tillman , 109 F. App'x 592 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-6841
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JAMES TILLMAN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
    (CR-00-137-AW, CA-04-94-AW)
    Submitted:   September 16, 2004       Decided:   September 22, 2004
    Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Tillman, Appellant Pro Se.     Stuart A. Berman, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    James Tillman seeks to appeal from 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, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336 (2003);
    Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).               We have independently reviewed the
    record    and    conclude      that   Tillman   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: 04-6841

Citation Numbers: 109 F. App'x 592

Judges: Duncan, King, Luttig, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 9/22/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024