United States v. Melvin , 231 F. App'x 296 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6833
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    GILBERT DEVON MELVIN, a/k/a G-Boy,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (5:98-cr-00037-F-14)
    Submitted: June 6, 2007                           Decided:   July 6, 2007
    Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge,        NIEMEYER,    Circuit    Judge,   and
    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gilbert Devon Melvin, Appellant Pro Se.    John Howarth Bennett,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Gilbert Melvin seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion and requests
    appointment of counsel.          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   Melvin    has   not    made   the    requisite     showing.
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Melvin’s
    motion for appointment of counsel, 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: 06-6833

Citation Numbers: 231 F. App'x 296

Judges: Williams, Niemeyer, Hamilton

Filed Date: 7/6/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024