United States v. Elsesser , 203 F. App'x 441 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6512
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    KEITH A. ELSESSER,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lyle E. Strom, Senior
    District Judge, sitting by designation. (3:01-cr-00079-3; 3:05-cv-
    00400)
    Submitted:   October 4, 2006                 Decided:   October 18, 2006
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gregory J. Rufo, THE RUFO LAW FIRM, Canton, Ohio, for Appellant.
    Kenneth M. Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Keith A. Elsesser seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion.                  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 Elsesser 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: 06-6512

Citation Numbers: 203 F. App'x 441

Judges: Gregory, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 10/18/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023