United States v. Shirley ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6247
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL SHIRLEY, a/k/a Winston Freeman,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:99-cr-00069-NCT-1; 1:05-cv-00238-NCT-RAE)
Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: July 1, 2008
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Shirley, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Shirley seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his application for a certificate of appealability to
appeal from 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 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 Shirley 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 -