United States v. Staine ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7771
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    LIONEL STAINE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Malcolm J. Howard,
    Senior District Judge. (4:02-cr-00060-H-1; 4:08-cv-00085-H)
    Submitted:    January 13, 2010              Decided:   January 27, 2010
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lionel Staine, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Ann Moore, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Lionel    Staine    seeks       to    appeal       the   district   court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp. 2009)
    motion.      The court denied Staine’s motion on the merits and
    because it was untimely.             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 Staine has not
    made the requisite showing.               Accordingly, we deny a certificate
    of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                       We also deny Staine’s
    motion    for   appointment         of    counsel.        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: 09-7771

Filed Date: 1/27/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021