Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07773/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07773-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Nathaniel Dillard
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7773

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES NATHANIEL DILLARD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (1:04-cr-00411-JAB-1; 1:06-cv-00330-JAB-WWD)

Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 27, 2008

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Nathaniel Dillard, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7773 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/27/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James Nathaniel Dillard seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and 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 Dillard 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: 07-7773 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/27/2008 Pg: 2 of 2