United States v. Burwell , 308 F. App'x 692 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-7190
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    GREGORY W. BURWELL,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.      Robert E. Payne, Senior
    District Judge (3:03-cr-00203-REP-1; 3:03-cv-00274-REP)
    Submitted:    December 16, 2008            Decided:   December 23, 2008
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gregory W. Burwell, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ronald Gill,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Gregory      W.     Burwell       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 Burwell 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: 08-7190

Citation Numbers: 308 F. App'x 692

Filed Date: 12/23/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021