Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07305/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07305-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 09-7305

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

GARFIELD ANTHONY ANDERSON, a/k/a James McDonald, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (7:02-cr-00070-F-1; 7:06-cv-00112-F) 

Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: February 8, 2010 

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Garfield Anthony Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret 

Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-7305 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/08/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Garfield Anthony Anderson 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 Anderson 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: 09-7305 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/08/2010 Pg: 2 of 2