United States v. Dumas , 355 F. App'x 750 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6985
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIE L. DUMAS, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00058-1; 5:07-cv-00795)
Submitted: October 28, 2009 Decided: December 11, 2009
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Willie L. Dumas, III, Appellant Pro Se. Charles T. Miller,
United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie L. Dumas, III, seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2009) motion, construing Dumas’ motion to amend as a
motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
(2006), and denying relief under § 3582(c)(2). The order
denying § 2255 relief 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 Dumas has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of the order
denying § 2255 relief. Further, we have reviewed the district
court’s order denying Dumas’ sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) and affirm, finding no reversible error. United
2
States v. Dumas, No. 5:04-cr-00058-1 (S.D. W. Va. May 15, 2009).
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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3