United States v. Young , 258 F. App'x 615 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6946
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    LANTIS JETON YOUNG,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
    District Judge. (3:00-cr-00131-GCM; 3:07-cv-00158-GCM)
    Submitted:   November 19, 2007         Decided:     December 19, 2007
    Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lantis Jeton Young, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Lantis Jeton Young 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 Young 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: 07-6946

Citation Numbers: 258 F. App'x 615

Judges: Traxler, Shedd, Duncan

Filed Date: 12/19/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024