United States v. Young , 251 F. App'x 166 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6102
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CLIFTON LAMONTE YOUNG,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (3:00-cr-00344; 3:03-cv-00819)
    Submitted:   October 11, 2007             Decided:   October 16, 2007
    Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Clifton Lamonte Young, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Clifton   Lamonte   Young   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 Young has not
    made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Young’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: 07-6102

Citation Numbers: 251 F. App'x 166

Judges: Hamilton, Michael, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 10/16/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023