United States v. Buchanan , 282 F. App'x 272 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6293
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    CALVIN E. BUCHANAN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.    Samuel G. Wilson, District
    Judge. (5:02-cr-30020-sgw-3; 7:07-cv-00206-sgw-mfu)
    Submitted:   June 19, 2008                 Decided:   June 24, 2008
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Calvin Eugene Buchanan, Appellant Pro Se. John L. Brownlee, United
    States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Calvin Eugene Buchanan 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 Buchanan has
    not made the requisite showing.           Accordingly, we deny Buchanan’s
    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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-6293

Citation Numbers: 282 F. App'x 272

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Michael

Filed Date: 6/24/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024