Court Opinion

ID: 1014766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:22:20.029746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:58.031338
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-6761

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

WILLIAM CORREY TALLEY, a/k/a Rat Rat,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Terrence W. Boyle,
Chief District Judge. (CR-94-65; CA-02-884-5-BO)

Submitted:   October 20, 2004           Decided:    November 17, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Correy Talley, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

          William Correy Talley appeals a district court’s order

dismissing 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong.   See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).      We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Talley has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Talley’s 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 the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                         DISMISSED