United States v. Smallwood ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6215
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TYRONE SMALLWOOD,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:07-cv-01179-TSE; 1:03-cr-00245-TSE-2)
Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 20, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyrone Smallwood, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin L. Hatch,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Smallwood seeks to appeal the district court’s
order 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 Smallwood
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
Smallwood’s motion to appoint counsel, deny Smallwood’s motions
to file an amended complaint in which he seeks to add new claims
on appeal, 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
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3