Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08253/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08253-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Lampkin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8253

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL LAMPKIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:06-cr-00051-FDW-DCK-2; 3:09-cv-00490-FDW)

Submitted: April 16, 2010 Decided: April 23, 2010

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Lampkin, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, Kevin Zolot, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8253 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/23/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Lampkin 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 Lampkin 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: 09-8253 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/23/2010 Pg: 2 of 2