Court Opinion

ID: 1019909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:42:51.48823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:25.970703
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 05-7969

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JAMES ALBERT BUMBRY, JR.,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.  Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CR-04-4; CA-05-379-7)

Submitted:   June 28, 2006                 Decided:   July 11, 2006

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Albert Bumbry, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.    John L. Brownlee,
United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          James Albert Bumbry, Jr., 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 his 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 Bumbry has not

made the requisite showing.   Accordingly, we deny the 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 -