United States v. Black

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Black, 364 F. App'x 831 (4th Cir. 2010)

United States v. Black

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7867

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DENNIS BLACK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00236-FDW-CH-1; 3:09-cv-00169-FDW)

Submitted: January 26, 2010 Decided: February 9, 2010

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Black, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Dennis Black 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 Black has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability, deny Black’s motion to supplement

informal opening brief, 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Unpublished