Court Opinion

ID: 1025605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:52:38.11108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:07.533124
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 08-6311

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

TAKI TROY HUGHES,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.   William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:05-cr-00268-WMN-1; 1:07-cv-01545-WMN)

Submitted:   April 24, 2008                 Decided:   April 30, 2008

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Taki Troy Hughes, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Taki Troy Hughes 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 Hughes 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 -