Court Opinion

ID: 1030002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 08:06:58.653649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:16.444779
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                No. 09-6480

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

DEMETRIUS LYDELL BRYANT,

                  Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00221-F-1; 5:07-cv-00282-F)

Submitted:    August 26, 2009                 Decided: September 2, 2009

Before TRAXLER,     Chief   Judge,   and   GREGORY   and   SHEDD,   Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demetrius Lydell Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Demetrius Lydell Bryant seeks to appeal the district

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

Supp. 2009) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.

The orders are 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    Bryant      has    not    made     the    requisite    showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.          We deny Bryant’s motion to stay 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