United States v. Viands , 155 F. App'x 721 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7798
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL STEVENSON VIANDS, a/k/a Mike,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (CR-00-57; CA-03-42-3)
Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 1, 2005
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Stevenson Viands, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Stevenson Viands, a federal prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of
the magistrate judge and 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 the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Viands has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Viands’ motion to
appoint counsel and 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 -