United States v. Bey , 232 F. App'x 354 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-7160
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DAMIAN G. BEY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   W. Earl Britt, Senior
    District Judge. (5:03-cr-00252; 5:05-cv-00323)
    Submitted:   May 30, 2007                  Decided:   July 10, 2007
    Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Damian G. Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant
    United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Damian Giovanni Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order accepting the report and recommendation of a 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 Bey 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: 06-7160

Citation Numbers: 232 F. App'x 354

Judges: Motz, King, Shedd

Filed Date: 7/10/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024