Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07715/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07715-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Everton Bartley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7715

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EVERTON BARTLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior

District Judge. (3:00-cr-00210-GCM-4; 3:04-cv-00511-GCM)

Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 3, 2008

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Everton Bartley, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Scott Broyles,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7715 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/03/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Everton Bartley seeks to appeal the district court’s

order 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 Bartley has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Bartley’s motion

for 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: 07-7715 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/03/2008 Pg: 2 of 2