Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06293/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06293-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Calvin Eugene Buchanan
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6293

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CALVIN E. BUCHANAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District

Judge. (5:02-cr-30020-sgw-3; 7:07-cv-00206-sgw-mfu)

Submitted: June 19, 2008 Decided: June 24, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Eugene Buchanan, Appellant Pro Se. John L. Brownlee, United

States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6293 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/24/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Eugene Buchanan 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 Buchanan has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Buchanan’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: 08-6293 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/24/2008 Pg: 2 of 2