United States v. Kelly , 289 F. App'x 601 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                  UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6116
    STEVEN GEORGE KELLY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
    District Judge. (5:96-cr-00033-RLV-2; 5:04-cv-00071-RLV)
    Submitted:     August 21, 2008                 Decided:   August 26, 2008
    Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Steven George Kelly, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Steven George Kelly 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 Kelly 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: 08-6116

Citation Numbers: 289 F. App'x 601

Judges: Williams, King, Duncan

Filed Date: 8/26/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024