Court Opinion

ID: 1030306
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 08:12:14.999114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:41:15.232021
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 09-6365

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

REGGIE WALDO CANADY,

                  Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:02-cr-00127-F-3; 7:08-cv-00023-F)

Submitted:    September 24, 2009            Decided:   October 6, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reggie Waldo Canady, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Ethan A.
Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Reggie     Waldo    Canady       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 Canady 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