Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07867/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07867-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennis Black
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7867

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DENNIS BLACK, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:05-cr-00236-FDW-CH-1; 3:09-cv-00169-FDW) 

Submitted: January 26, 2010 Decided: February 9, 2010 

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Dennis Black, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant 

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-7867 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/09/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Dennis Black 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 Black has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability, deny Black’s motion to supplement 

informal opening brief, 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: 09-7867 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/09/2010 Pg: 2 of 2