Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06469/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06469-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Christopher Raphael Woodberry
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6469

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER R. WOODBERRY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.

(4:02-cr-40; 4:05-cv-1440)

Submitted: November 30, 2007 Decided: January 23, 2008

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher R. Woodberry, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Parham,

Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6469 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/23/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
*

To the extent that the district court erred in finding that

several of Woodberry’s ineffective assistance claims were precluded

because they were encompassed in our decision on direct appeal, we

have reviewed these claims on the merits and conclude that no

certificate of appealability is warranted. See generally United

States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997) (noting that

ineffective assistance claims are not generally cognizable on

direct appeal).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Raphael Woodberry seeks to appeal the

district court’s order 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 Woodberry has

not made the requisite showing.* Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny

Woodberry’s motion to expedite the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

Appeal: 07-6469 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/23/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 07-6469 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/23/2008 Pg: 3 of 3