United States v. Bennett ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6465
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY O. BENNETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (2:06-cr-00006-LHT-DLH-1; 2:07-cv-00020-LHT)
Submitted: May 29, 2008 Decided: July 3, 2008
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy O. Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Corey F. Ellis, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy O. Bennett moves for a certificate of
appealability, seeking to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying
his motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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 Bennett has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for 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-