United States v. Bellamy

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Bellamy, 361 F. App'x 514 (4th Cir. 2009)

United States v. Bellamy

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7386

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES LARRY BELLAMY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:99-cr-00049-F-2; 7:03-cv-00015-F)

Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 29, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Larry Bellamy, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

James Larry Bellamy seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West

Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Bellamy has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Bellamy’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Unpublished