Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07160/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07160-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Cruso R. Wallace
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7160

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CRUSO R. WALLACE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston,

District Judge. (5:02-cr-00101; 5:04-cv-00732)

Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 25, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cruso R. Wallace, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7160 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/25/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Cruso R. Wallace seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

denying his motion for reconsideration. 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 Wallace has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We deny Wallace’s motion for abeyance and

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: 07-7160 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/25/2008 Pg: 2 of 2