United States v. Friend , 82 F. App'x 853 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7096
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TRAVIS MCKINNLEY FRIEND,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CR-99-201, CA-01-836)
Submitted: December 11, 2003 Decided: December 19, 2003
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Travis McKinnley Friend, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Ronald Hood,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Travis McKinnley Friend appeals from the denial of his 18
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion to vacate his sentence in which he
alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Friend pled guilty
pursuant to a written plea agreement to conspiracy to interfere
with interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2000), and
carjacking, 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (2000). Thereafter, Friend pled
guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to a separate incident
of carjacking. Both carjackings resulted in the deaths of the
victims, and Friend received two life sentences.
An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order
in a § 2255 proceeding 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 his
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,
683 (4th Cir. 2001).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that
Friend has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a
2
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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3