Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06858/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06858-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tolliver Quaco
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6858

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

TOLLIVER QUACO, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior 

District Judge. (1:90-cr-00275-JCC-1; 1:08-cv-00318-JCC) 

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 17, 2008 

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Tolliver Quaco, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 08-6858 Doc: 6 Filed: 10/17/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Tolliver Quaco 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 Quaco 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: 08-6858 Doc: 6 Filed: 10/17/2008 Pg: 2 of 2