United States v. Alexander , 357 F. App'x 529 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7725
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DAVID L. ALEXANDER,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.     Glen E. Conrad, District
    Judge. (7:07-cr-00030-gec-mfu-3; 7:09-cv-80172-gec-mfu)
    Submitted:    December 15, 2009            Decided:   December 21, 2009
    Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David L. Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford,
    Assistant  United  States  Attorney, Roanoke,  Virginia,  for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    David       L.    Alexander        seeks     to     appeal      the   district
    court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West
    Supp.   2009)    motion.        The     order      is   not    appealable        unless     a
    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2006).                   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)         (2006).        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 Alexander
    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: 09-7725

Citation Numbers: 357 F. App'x 529

Filed Date: 12/21/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021