Court Opinion

ID: 1030085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 08:08:34.374879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:37.638898
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                No. 09-7047

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

WALTER LOMAX CAMPBELL,

                  Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:06-cr-00812-HMH-1; 6:09-cv-70054-HMH)

Submitted:    August 26, 2009             Decided:   September 18, 2009

Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Lomax Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Walter    Lomax    Campbell         seeks    to    appeal   the    district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp.    2009)    motion.         The    order       is    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 Campbell 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

                                               2