United States v. McGill , 272 F. App'x 229 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6680
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ANDREW JAMES MCGILL, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.    Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
    (8:99-cr-00214-DKC; 8:04-cv-00191-DKC)
    Submitted:   March 27, 2008                 Decided:   April 1, 2008
    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Andrew James McGill, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.     Stuart A. Berman,
    Assistant United States Attorney; James Marton Trusty, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland; Sandra Wilkinson,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Andrew James McGill, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order 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   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 McGill 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: 07-6680

Citation Numbers: 272 F. App'x 229

Judges: Traxler, Duncan, Hamilton

Filed Date: 4/1/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024