United States v. Boyce , 201 F. App'x 951 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6985
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    WILLIAM MARCEL BOYCE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Huntington.   Robert C. Chambers,
    District Judge. (3:91-cr-00114-03; 3:05-cv-00070)
    Submitted: September 26, 2006              Decided: October 2, 2006
    Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William Marcel Boyce, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    William Marcel Boyce seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge
    and dismissing his successive 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion with
    prejudice. 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 Boyce has not
    made the requisite showing.      Accordingly, we deny Boyce’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: 06-6985

Citation Numbers: 201 F. App'x 951

Judges: Hamilton, Per Curiam, Widener, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 10/2/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023