US v. Dillard, (4th Cir. 2008)

Status: Not Published

Docket Number: 07-7773

Linked as:

Text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7773

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES NATHANIEL DILLARD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (1:04-cr-00411-JAB-1; 1:06-cv-00330-JAB-WWD)

Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 27, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Nathaniel Dillard, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: James Nathaniel Dillard seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28U.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 Dillard 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