United States v. Mayes , 280 F. App'x 297 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6011
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MARK KEVIN MAYES,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.     Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
    District Judge. (7:07-cv-00132; 4:02-cr-70110-JLK)
    Submitted:   May 16, 2008                    Decided:   June 4, 2008
    Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Mark Kevin Mayes, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Mark Kevin Mayes seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    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 Mayes has not
    made the requisite showing.       Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
    appealability, deny Mayes’s motion to appoint 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: 08-6011

Citation Numbers: 280 F. App'x 297

Judges: Wilkinson, Shedd, Hamilton

Filed Date: 6/4/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024