Court Opinion

ID: 858644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-04-22 19:12:58.531368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:12.634924
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 12-8083

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

KIRT LIONEL BYNUM,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.    Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:07-cr-00242-CCB-1; 1:10-cv-00295-CCB)

Submitted:   April 18, 2013                 Decided:   April 22, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kirt Lionel Bynum, Appellant Pro Se.    Gregory Welsh, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Kirt Lionel Bynum seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012)

motion.    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge     issues     a     certificate     of    appealability.               28     U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (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).                   When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this    standard     by    demonstrating       that     reasonable      jurists       would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims is debatable or wrong.              Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484    (2000);     see    Miller-El   v.   Cockrell,       537 U.S. 322,    336-38

(2003).

            We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Bynum has not made the requisite showing.                         Accordingly, we

deny his 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    this     court    and   argument      would    not   aid     the    decisional

process.

                                                                               DISMISSED

                                           2