Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06219/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06219-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 08-6219

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STEVEN AUBREY BURNETTE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District

Judge. (7:99-cr-00109-jct-mfu-1; 7:08-cv-80019-jct-mfu)

Submitted: May 1, 2008 Decided: June 9, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Aubrey Burnette, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Jack Bondurant,

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6219 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/09/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
*Although Burnette characterized the motion as one under 28

U.S.C. § 1651 (2000), the district court properly construed the

motion as a § 2255 proceeding. See In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194

(4th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Steven Aubrey Burnette seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying as successive 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 Burnette has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Burnette’s

motion for certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

also deny Burnette’s motions for appointment of counsel and for the

preparation of a transcript at the Government’s expense. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

Appeal: 08-6219 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/09/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 08-6219 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/09/2008 Pg: 3 of 3