United States v. Dade

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Dade, 304 F. App'x 187 (4th Cir. 2008)

United States v. Dade

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7677

DAMON DADE, a/k/a Johnny,

Defendant - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:99-cr-00425-JCC-1)

Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 24, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon Dade, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Michael Fitzpatrick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Damon Dade seeks to appeal the district court’s order

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 Dade has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Dade’s motion for 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Unpublished