United States v. Diclemente , 290 F. App'x 570 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                  UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7090
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DOMINIC ANTHONY DICLEMENTE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
    District Judge. (5:95-cr-00010-RLV; 5:07-cv-00066-RLV)
    Submitted:     August 21, 2008                 Decided:   August 25, 2008
    Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    John Clark Fischer, RANDOLPH & FISCHER, Winston-Salem, North
    Carolina, for Appellant.    Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Dominic Anthony Diclemente 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 Diclemente 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: 07-7090

Citation Numbers: 290 F. App'x 570

Judges: Williams, King, Duncan

Filed Date: 8/25/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024