United States v. McDaniel

194 F. App'x 138
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. McDaniel. Read the opinion of the Court — 290 F. App'x 562
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided August 11, 2006·No. 05-7593·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Willie Demarcus McDaniel, a federal prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. A certifícate 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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are likewise debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McDaniel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny McDaniel’s request for a certificate of appealability and dismiss his 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. McDaniel, 194 F. App'x 138 (4th Cir. 2006).

194 F. App'x 138 (United States v. McDaniel) — 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)