Court Opinion

ID: 1026782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:11:53.812701+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:19.129078
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 08-6797

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

FRANK W. BALLANCE, JR.,

                  Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00282-BO-1; 5:06-cv-00365-BO)

Submitted:     September 16, 2008          Decided:   September 23, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank W. Ballance, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.     Dennis W. Duffy,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Frank W. Ballance, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying Ballance’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) claims.

The orders are 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 that Ballance 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 -