United States v. McGrady , 187 F. App'x 280 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6082
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ELLANCER ALLEN MCGRADY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Richard L. Voorhees,
    District Judge. (CR-94-44; 1:02-cv-00198)
    Submitted: June 22, 2006                        Decided: June 28, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ellancer Allen McGrady, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Ellancer Allen McGrady seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion
    and motion to amend his § 2255 motion.                        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    McGrady   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: 06-6082

Citation Numbers: 187 F. App'x 280

Judges: Gregory, Michael, Niemeyer, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 6/28/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023