United States v. Bobbitt , 84 F. App'x 301 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7335
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    LAFAWN DEWAYNE BOBBITT, a/k/a Mandingo, a/k/a
    Dingo,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-97-169, CA-01-434-3)
    Submitted:    November 12, 2003           Decided:     December 24, 2003
    Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lafawn Dewayne Bobbitt, Appellant Pro Se.         Nicholas Stephan
    Altimari, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Lafawn Dewayne Bobbitt seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255
    proceeding 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and
    that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are
    also debatable or wrong.   See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    ,
    336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v.
    Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).         We have independently
    reviewed the record and conclude that Bobbitt 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: 03-7335

Citation Numbers: 84 F. App'x 301

Judges: Williams, Gregory, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/24/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024