United States v. Benson

70 F. App'x 670
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Benson. Read the opinion of the Court — 69 F. App'x 197
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided July 16, 2003·No. 03-6401·Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6401

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES ALEXANDER BENSON, a/k/a Jamie Benson,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-00-626, CA-02-67-3-20)

Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 16, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Alexander Benson, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

James Alexander Benson seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, denying

relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and

denying reconsideration. 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Benson 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Benson, 70 F. App'x 670 (4th Cir. 2003).

70 F. App'x 670 (United States v. Benson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Rose v. Lee
252 F.3d 676 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)