United States v. Walsh , 229 F. App'x 272 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7922
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT LEE WALSH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:04-cr-00752-PMD; 2:06-cv-01576-PMD)
Submitted: June 4, 2007 Decided: June 19, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Lee Walsh, Appellant Pro Se. Brent Alan Gray, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Lee Walsh seeks to appeal the district court’s
order granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying the motion. The order
denying Walsh’s § 2255 motion 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 Walsh 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 -