United States v. Green , 254 F. App'x 994 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6649
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CAVIN A. GREEN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
    District Judge. (3:02-cr-00026-WCB; 3:05-cv-00003-WCB)
    Submitted:   November 15, 2007       Decided:    November 21, 2007
    Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Cavin A. Green, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Cavin A. Green 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 Green 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: 07-6649

Citation Numbers: 254 F. App'x 994

Judges: Duncan, Motz, Per Curiam, Williams

Filed Date: 11/21/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023