Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-08343/USCOURTS-ca4-08-08343-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 08-8343

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PAUL H. NOE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (3:02-cr-00096-JFA-2; 3:07-cv-70009-JFA)

Submitted: July 19, 2010 Decided: July 30, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul H. Noe, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-8343 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/30/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Paul H. Noe seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 

2010) motion. The orders are 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). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Noe 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 

Appeal: 08-8343 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/30/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 08-8343 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/30/2010 Pg: 3 of 3