United States v. Bennett

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Bennett, 163 F. App'x 215 (4th Cir. 2006)

United States v. Bennett

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6937

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TYSEAN SHARIF BENNETT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR-01-215; CA-04-379-5-BO)

Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 24, 2006

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tysean Sharif Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Tysean Sharif Bennett seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a § 2255 proceeding 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 both 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

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683

(4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bennett

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 -

Reference

Status
Unpublished