Court Opinion

ID: 1027774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:29:23.313889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:18:25.159844
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 08-8413

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

DWIGHT LAMAR SPEARS,

                  Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (6:07-cr-00710-HMH-14; 6:08-cv-70124-HMH)

Submitted:    January 15, 2009               Decided:   January 26, 2009

Before MOTZ and      SHEDD,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwight Lamar Spears, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Dwight       Lamar    Spears      seeks       to    appeal      the     district

court’s    order       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 that Spears 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