Case ID: f-appx_144/html/0998-01.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. John Fraser MAGILL, Defendant—Appellant.
    Nos. 05-6734, 05-6763.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 29, 2005.
    Decided Oct. 7, 2005.
    John Fraser Magill, Appellant Pro Se. Randy Ramseyer, United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

John Fraser Magill seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and a subsequent order denying his motion for the production of transcripts. The orders are 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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Magill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Magill’s motion for preparation of transcript at government expense. 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