United States v. Nicholson , 194 F. App'x 106 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7904
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    WILLIAM HENRY NICHOLSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
    Chief District Judge. (CR-02-119; CA-04-1147-1-NCT)
    Submitted:   August 2, 2006                 Decided:   August 16, 2006
    Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William Henry Nicholson, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    William Henry Nicholson seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order accepting the recommendation of the 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 Nicholson 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: 05-7904

Citation Numbers: 194 F. App'x 106

Judges: Michael, Shedd, Hamilton

Filed Date: 8/16/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024