United States v. Viands , 155 F. App'x 721 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7798
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MICHAEL STEVENSON VIANDS, a/k/a Mike,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
    District Judge. (CR-00-57; CA-03-42-3)
    Submitted:   November 22, 2005            Decided:   December 1, 2005
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael Stevenson Viands, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Stevenson Viands, a federal prisoner, seeks to
    appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of
    the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000).              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     the    district      court’s       assessment      of    his
    constitutional      claims       is   debatable       or   wrong      and   that    any
    dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
    debatable or wrong.            See 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 Viands has not made the
    requisite      showing.         Accordingly,     we    deny       a   certificate       of
    appealability and dismiss the appeal.                 We deny Viands’ motion to
    appoint counsel 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: 04-7798

Citation Numbers: 155 F. App'x 721

Judges: Gregory, Motz, Per Curiam, Traxler

Filed Date: 12/1/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023