Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07172/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07172-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Troy James Powell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7172

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TROY JAMES POWELL, a/k/a Sld Dft 5:01CR5-7,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (5:01-cr-00005-RLV; 5:07-cv-00078-RLV)

Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 27, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy James Powell, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7172 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/27/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Troy James Powell seeks to appeal the district court’s

order treating his motion to amend as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion and dismissing it on that basis. 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 Powell 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: 07-7172 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/27/2007 Pg: 2 of 2