United States v. Sargeant

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Sargeant, 367 F. App'x 409 (4th Cir. 2010)

United States v. Sargeant

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7871

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ROY PATRICK SARGEANT, a/k/a Sarge, a/k/a Cee,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (0:04-cr-00898-JFA-1, 0:08-cv-70137-JFA)

Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 25, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Patrick Sargeant, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Roy Patrick Sargeant 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 Sargeant has

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Unpublished