United States v. Prescod , 258 F. App'x 548 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7351
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    WILLIAM ALFRED PRESCOD, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
    District Judge. (5:99-cr-00029-RLV; 5:04-cv-00161-RLV)
    Submitted:   December 13, 2007         Decided:     December 20, 2007
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William Alfred Prescod, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F.
    Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    William Alfred Prescod, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.
    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   any
    assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.     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 Prescod 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: 07-7351

Citation Numbers: 258 F. App'x 548

Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/20/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024