Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07424/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07424-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benjamin Nelson Holmes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7424

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BENJAMIN NELSON HOLMES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District

Judge. (4:01-cr-00121-CWH; 4:05-cv-02953-CWH)

Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 6, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin Nelson Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7424 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/06/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Nelson Holmes seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying as moot several nondispositive motions filed

during the pendency of Holmes’ unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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. See 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 Holmes

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Holmes’

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: 07-7424 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/06/2008 Pg: 2 of 2