Court Opinion

ID: 1026041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:59:51.792146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:41.420760
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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

                                   - 2 -