United States v. Aull

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Aull, 300 F. App'x 252 (4th Cir. 2008)

United States v. Aull

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7032

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MYRON B. AULL,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-7035

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MYRON B. AULL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:99-cr-00543-DCN-1; 2:02-cv-02054-DCN; 2:00-cr-00950- DCN-1; 2:02-cv-02055-DCN)

Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 19, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Myron B. Aull, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Myron B. Aull seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion for reconsideration of the

denial of his

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2008) 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 Aull 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

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished