United States v. Magill

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6734
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN FRASER MAGILL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-6763
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN FRASER MAGILL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District
Judge. (CR-02-129; CA-04-510-7)
Submitted: September 29, 2005 Decided: October 7, 2005
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Fraser Magill, Appellant Pro Se. Randy Ramseyer, United
States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
John Fraser Magill seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(2000), and a subsequent order denying his motion for the
production of transcripts. 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 the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Magill has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We further deny Magill’s motion for preparation of
transcript at government expense. 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
- 3 -