United States v. Day ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-8244
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    WILLIAM QUINN DAY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
    Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00032-NCT-1; 1:08-cv-00456-NCT-
    PTS)
    Submitted:   March 16, 2010                 Decided:   March 26, 2010
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William Quinn Day, Appellant Pro Se.   Angela Hewlett Miller,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    William Quinn Day seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    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 Day 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: 098244

Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, Davis

Filed Date: 3/26/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024