Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06040/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06040-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jack Earl Best
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6040

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JACK EARL BEST,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (5:02-cr-00243-H-1; 5:07-cv-00331-H)

Submitted: March 25, 2008 Decided: March 31, 2008

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jack Earl Best, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6040 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/31/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jack Earl Best seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. 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 Best 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: 08-6040 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/31/2008 Pg: 2 of 2