Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06608/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06608-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Willie Marion Butler
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 46(d).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6608

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIE MARION BUTLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (8:07-cv-70000-HMH; 8:04-cr-00940-HMH)

Submitted: November 20, 2007 Decided: November 28, 2007

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.*

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Marion Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6608 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/28/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Willie Marion Butler 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 Butler 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: 07-6608 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/28/2007 Pg: 2 of 2