United States v. Belcher , 117 F. App'x 289 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7470
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    LARRY DARNELL BELCHER,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.   Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-01-39-7)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2004         Decided:     December 28, 2004
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Larry Darnell Belcher, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Larry       Darnell    Belcher      seeks   to    appeal   the        district
    court’s order denying relief on his motion for a certificate of
    appealability arising out of his action under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000).     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
    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
    , 336-38 (2003);
    Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).                   We have independently reviewed the
    record    and    conclude          that   Belcher    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: 04-7470

Citation Numbers: 117 F. App'x 289

Judges: Michael, King, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/28/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024