United States v. Mark , 202 F. App'x 633 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6526
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    GLEN MARK, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham.   Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
    Senior District Judge. (2:89-cr-00263; 1:05-cv-01037-FWB-PT)
    Submitted: September 28, 2006              Decided: October 6, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Glen Mark, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Glen Mark, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    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 Mark has not
    made the requisite showing.           Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
    appealability and dismiss the appeal.               We deny Mark’s motions to
    expedite the appeal and 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: 06-6526

Citation Numbers: 202 F. App'x 633

Judges: Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Shedd, Traxler

Filed Date: 10/6/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023