United States v. Eliely ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6850
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    SHAWN ELIELY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.      Raymond A. Jackson,
    District Judge.    (4:04-cr-00078-RAJ-FBS-1; 4:07-cv-00011-RAJ-
    FBS)
    Submitted:    October 30, 2008              Decided:   November 14, 2008
    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Shawn Eliely, Appellant Pro Se. Scott W. Putney, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Shawn    Eliely       seeks      to    appeal       the    district       court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2006) motion.                                   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       that   Eliely       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: 08-6850

Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, Hamilton

Filed Date: 11/14/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024