Case ID: f-appx_230/html/0320-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Governor ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-6378.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 15, 2007.
    Decided: June 22, 2007.
    Timothy Governor Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Timothy Governor Alexander 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. Alexander also seeks a stay of these proceedings pending the outcome of a pending motion in the district court.

The district court’s order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Alexander has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we deny Alexander’s request for a stay. 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.