Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07871/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07871-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roy Patrick Sargeant
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7871

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ROY PATRICK SARGEANT, a/k/a Sarge, a/k/a Cee,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (0:04-cr-00898-JFA-1, 0:08-cv-70137-JFA)

Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 25, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Patrick Sargeant, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7871 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/25/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Roy Patrick Sargeant 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 that Sargeant has 

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

motion for 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: 09-7871 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/25/2010 Pg: 2 of 2