United States v. Van Buren , 304 F. App'x 209 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-7952
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ERIC MARTIN VAN BUREN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.       Norman K. Moon,
    District Judge. (3:00-cr-00066-nkm-mfu-1; 3:07-cv-80016-nkm-mfu)
    Submitted:    December 16, 2008            Decided:   December 29, 2008
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Eric Martin Van Buren, Appellant Pro Se.    Jean Barrett Hudson,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Eric Martin Van Buren seeks to appeal the district
    court’s orders denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000)
    motion and his 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      Van   Buren     has   not   made   the     requisite   showing.
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave
    to   proceed    in    forma       pauperis,    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: 08-7952

Citation Numbers: 304 F. App'x 209

Filed Date: 12/29/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021