United States v. Simon

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Simon, 303 F. App'x 162 (4th Cir. 2008)

United States v. Simon

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8056

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

STALIN SIMON,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. David A. Faber, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00408-DAF)

Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 18, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stalin Simon, Appellant Pro Se. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Stalin Simon 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 and order

denying his motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

The orders are 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 Simon 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Unpublished