Court Opinion

ID: 152546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-08-10 00:04:07+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:09.448624
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 10-6770

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DAVID SCOTT LEE,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (0:07-cr-00043-CMC-4)

Submitted:   July 27,2010                 Decided:   August 9, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Scott Lee, Appellant Pro Se.       Jimmie Ewing, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            David Scott Lee seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)

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).                 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).     When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                           Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.           We have independently reviewed the record

and    conclude     that    Lee    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

                                              2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3