Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07310/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07310-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arthur Billy Coleman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7310

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ARTHUR BILLY COLEMAN, a/k/a James Eric Nash,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(8:04-mj-03499; 8:05-cv-03085-AW)

Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 25, 2008

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Billy Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Hollis Raphael Weisman,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7310 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/25/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Billy Coleman 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 Coleman 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: 07-7310 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/25/2008 Pg: 2 of 2