United States v. Phillips , 234 F. App'x 159 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6741
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    LARRY FRANKLIN PHILLIPS, a/k/a Shag,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg,
    District Judge. (2:02-cr-00104-6; 2:07-cv-00007-LHT)
    Submitted: July 19, 2007                    Decided:   July 25, 2007
    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Larry Franklin Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Larry Franklin Phillips seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order dismissing as untimely 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 Phillips has
    not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
    of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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: 07-6741

Citation Numbers: 234 F. App'x 159

Judges: Motz, Gregory, Wilkins

Filed Date: 7/25/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024