Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07709/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07709-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Terrance Tremaine Wyllie
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7709

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRANCE TREMAINE WYLLIE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (1:05-cr-00063-JAB-1; 1:07-cv-00079-JAB)

Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 11, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrance Tremaine Wyllie, Appellant Pro Se. Anna Mills Wagoner,

United States Attorney, Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7709 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/11/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Terrance Tremaine Wyllie seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and 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 Wyllie 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: 07-7709 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/11/2008 Pg: 2 of 2