United States v. Biddix , 100 F. App'x 911 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-6183
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TIMOTHY GERALD BIDDIX,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.  Lacy H. Thornburg,
    District Judge. (CR-99-52; CA-03-217-1)
    Submitted:   June 10, 2004                 Decided:   June 17, 2004
    Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Sandra Baughn Jelovsek, Johnson City, Tennessee, for Appellant.
    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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Timothy   Gerald   Biddix   seeks   to   appeal   the   district
    court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000).      The order is appealable only if 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
    his constitutional claims are 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 Biddix has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny
    Biddix’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: 04-6183

Citation Numbers: 100 F. App'x 911

Judges: Hamilton, Per Curiam, Traxler, Williams

Filed Date: 6/17/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023