Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07514/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07514-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benny Lynn Isom
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7514

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BENNY LYNN ISOM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior

District Judge. (1:03-cr-00242-WLO; 1:06-cv-1005)

Submitted: December 17, 2007 Decided: December 26, 2007

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benny Lynn Isom, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7514 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/26/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Benny Lynn Isom 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 Isom 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: 07-7514 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/26/2007 Pg: 2 of 2