United States v. Keys , 285 F. App'x 67 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6461
    UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DARREN L. KEYS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.     Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
    (1:98-cr-00144-CCB-1; 1:07-cv-02049-CCB)
    Submitted:   July 22, 2008                     Decided:   July 25, 2008
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Darren L. Keys, Appellant Pro Se.             Harvey Ellis Eisenberg,
    Assistant United States Attorney,           Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Darren L. Keys seeks to appeal the district court’s
    marginal order denying relief on his “motion”* filed in his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) action.             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    Keys    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
    *
    The motion was titled “Emergency Motion for Correction of
    Court’s Records to Clarify Case Number Given to First and Only
    § 2255 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(a) and Fed. R. Cr. P. 36 and
    Privacy Act Under 5 USC § 552a and 60(b).” (R. 78).
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-6461

Citation Numbers: 285 F. App'x 67

Judges: Wilkinson, Motz, Shedd

Filed Date: 7/25/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024