Court Opinion

ID: 1025820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:56:13.196024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:28.137250
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                     FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 07-7724

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

GUISEPPE L. WALLACE, JR.,

               Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley.      Thomas E. Johnston,
Magistrate Judge. (5:02-cr-00101-2; 5:05-cv-00252)

Submitted: May 22, 2008                        Decided:   May 27, 2008

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Guiseppe L. Wallace, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.     John Lanier File,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Guiseppe Wallace, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order rejecting 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 that Wallace has not

made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Wallace’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

                                 - 2 -