Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07449/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07449-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 07-7449

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALBERT NEWTON COOMBS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

District Judge. (1:99-cr-00069; 1:04-cv-01052)

Submitted: March 25, 2008 Decided: April 10, 2008

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Newton Coombs, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7449 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/10/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
*

To the extent Coombs seeks retroactive application of U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1 (2007) (Amendment 706) to his

sentence, see USSG § 1B1.10(c) (Mar. 3, 2008), he may apply for a

reduction in the district court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

(2000).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Albert Newton Coombs seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) 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 Coombs has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss

the appeal. We deny as moot Coombs’ motion to place this appeal in

abeyance until March 3, 2008.* We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

Appeal: 07-7449 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/10/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 07-7449 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/10/2008 Pg: 3 of 3