Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07696/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07696-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 09-7696

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID JOE SHELTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief

District Judge. (1:04-cr-00045-jpj-mfu-1; 1:08-cv-80027)

Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 2, 2010

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Noell Peter Tin, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis H. Lee, 

COMMONWEALTH’S ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Tazewell, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7696 Doc: 16 Filed: 04/02/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

David Joe Shelton seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying 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. MillerEl 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 Shelton 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: 09-7696 Doc: 16 Filed: 04/02/2010 Pg: 2 of 2