United States v. Montford , 172 F. App'x 503 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7238
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DALE MCKINLEY MONTFORD,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.   Jerome B. Friedman,
    District Judge. (CR-04-45; CA-05-37-4)
    Submitted:   February 22, 2006             Decided:   March 2, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dale McKinley Montford, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Dale McKinley Montford seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000).        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
    the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the   district    court   is   likewise   debatable.       See    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
    Montford 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-7238

Citation Numbers: 172 F. App'x 503

Judges: Luttig, Motz, Niemeyer, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 3/2/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023