Court Opinion

ID: 1023396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:37:10.141008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:12.242609
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 06-8066

RAYMOND CHERISSON,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:94-cr-00097-BO-14)

Submitted:   July 20, 2007                 Decided:   August 8, 2007

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Cherisson, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Blaise Hamilton,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Raymond Cherisson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order construing his “Omnibus Motion to Modify Term of Imprisonment

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000),

and denying relief.          He further seeks to appeal the district

court’s    dismissal    of     his   Fed   R.   Civ.    P.    59(e)    motion   for

reconsideration of that denial of relief.                    The orders are 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 Cherisson has not made the requisite

showing.    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal.      We dispense with oral argument               because   the

                                      - 2 -
facts   and   legal    contentions   are     adequately   presented     in   the

materials     before   the   court   and     argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                      DISMISSED

                                     - 3 -