Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06952/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06952-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ryan Edwin Headden
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6952

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RYAN EDWIN HEADDEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

District Judge. (7:01-cr-00126-F-1; 7:04-cv-00035-F)

Submitted: March 22, 2010 Decided: May 6, 2010

Before MICHAEL,* MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ryan Edwin Headden, Appellant Pro Se. George Edward Bell 

Holding, United States Attorney, Steve R. Matheny, Ethan A. 

Ontjes, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

 * Judge Michael was a member of the original panel but did 

not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a 

quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

Appeal: 09-6952 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/06/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-6952 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/06/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Ryan Edwin Headden seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Headden 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: 09-6952 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/06/2010 Pg: 3 of 3