Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-07048/USCOURTS-ca4-08-07048-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7048

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICHARD TOLAND FIELDS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.

(7:07-cv-00492-gec-mfu; 5:04-cr-30018-gec-bwc-6)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 24, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Toland Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Ray Burton Fitzgerald,

Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-7048 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/24/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Toland Fields seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2008) motion. The order is 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

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 Fields has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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

Appeal: 08-7048 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/24/2008 Pg: 2 of 2