United States v. Melton ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7546
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    RANDY ALAN MELTON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.     Glen E. Conrad, District
    Judge. (7:08-cr-00017-gec-mfu-1; 7:09-cv-80171-gec-mfu)
    Submitted:    December 16, 2009             Decided:     January 7, 2010
    Before WILKINSON and      MICHAEL,   Circuit   Judges,    and   HAMILTON,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Randy Alan Melton, Appellant Pro Se.         Ronald Andrew Bassford,
    Assistant  United  States  Attorney,        Roanoke,  Virginia,  for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Randy Alan Melton seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp. 2009)
    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 Melton 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: 09-7546

Judges: Wilkinson, Michael, Hamilton

Filed Date: 1/7/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024