United States v. MacDonald , 251 F. App'x 810 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6374
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JAMES E. MACDONALD,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston.   Patrick Michael Duffy, District
    Judge. (2:04-cr-00107; 2:06-cv-01013-PMD)
    Submitted:   October 18, 2007             Decided:   October 24, 2007
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James E. MacDonald, Appellant Pro Se.       John Charles Duane,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    James E. MacDonald seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order 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 MacDonald has
    not made the requisite showing.            Accordingly, we deny MacDonald’s
    motions   for    appointment       of   counsel    and   for       preparation     of    a
    transcript      at    government        expense,    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: 07-6374

Citation Numbers: 251 F. App'x 810

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, King

Filed Date: 10/24/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024