Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07217/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07217-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tivarus Montiento McRae
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7217

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TIVARUS MONTIENTO MCRAE, a/k/a Tat-Killer,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:98-cr-00037-F-12; 5:03-cv-00577-F)

Submitted: March 4, 2008 Decided: March 12, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tivarus Montiento McRae, Appellant Pro Se. John H. Bennett, OFFICE

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

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7217 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/12/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Tivarus Montiento McRae seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)

motion, his motion for reconsideration, and his motion for a

certificate of appealability. The orders are 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 McRae has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny McRae’s

motion for appointment of counsel, 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: 07-7217 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/12/2008 Pg: 2 of 2