Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07350/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07350-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 07-7350

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHE GRIFFIN, a/k/a Roger Small, a/k/a

Flame,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.

(3:04-cr-00030-NKM; 7:06-cv-00396-NKM)

Submitted: January 30, 2008 Decided: February 21, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dana Roger Cormier, DANA R. CORMIER, PLC, Staunton, Virginia, for

Appellant. Ruth Elizabeth Plagenhoef, Assistant United States

Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7350 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/21/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Christophe Griffin 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 Griffin 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: 07-7350 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/21/2008 Pg: 2 of 2