United States v. Pulliam , 157 F. App'x 655 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7024
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TIMOTHY JOHN PULLIAM,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
    Chief District Judge. (CR-02-134; CA-04-887)
    Submitted:   November 17, 2005         Decided:     December 12, 2005
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Timothy John Pulliam, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Timothy John Pulliam seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    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 both that the
    district   court’s   assessment    of   his   constitutional       claims   is
    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by
    the district court are also debatable or wrong.            See Miller-El v.
    Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (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 Pulliam
    has not made the requisite showing.             Accordingly, we deny a
    certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
    pauperis, 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: 05-7024

Citation Numbers: 157 F. App'x 655

Judges: Wilkinson, Luttig, Williams

Filed Date: 12/12/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024