Court Opinion

ID: 1026877
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:13:47.376519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:22.400041
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 08-6789

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

LAKENDRICK FOBBS,

                  Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:03-cr-00310-H-1; 5:07-cv-00115-H)

Submitted:    October 14, 2008              Decided:   October 17, 2008

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lakendrick Fobbs, Appellant Pro Se.    Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Lakendrick Fobbs seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

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 Fobbs 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