United States v. Daniels , 304 F. App'x 186 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6853
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    TERRENCE DANIELS, a/k/a Terrance Daniels,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.   Cameron McGowan Currie, District
    Judge. (3:04-cr-00330-CMC-1; 3:07-cv-70119-CMC)
    Submitted:    December 10, 2008            Decided:   December 23, 2008
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Terrence Daniels, Appellant Pro Se.     Deborah Brereton Barbier,
    William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorneys,
    Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Terrence Daniels seeks to appeal the district court’s
    orders denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion and
    subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration.
    The orders are 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    Daniels     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: 08-6853

Citation Numbers: 304 F. App'x 186

Filed Date: 12/23/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021