Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06897/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06897-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Troy Dean Bush
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6897

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TROY DEAN BUSH, a/k/a Sld Dft 5:03CR37-14,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00037-RLV-14; 5:06-cv-00051-

RLV)

Submitted: March 5, 2010 Decided: March 18, 2010

Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy Dean Bush, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 09-6897 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/18/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Troy Dean Bush seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 

2009) motion and denying in part and granting in part 

reconsideration. The orders are 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 Bush 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: 09-6897 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/18/2010 Pg: 2 of 2