United States v. Outlaw

159 F. App'x 515
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 27, 2005
Docket05-6081
StatusUnpublished

This text of 159 F. App'x 515 (United States v. Outlaw) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Outlaw, 159 F. App'x 515 (4th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6081

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ARTHUR ALAN OUTLAW,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-00-114; CA-03-719-7)

Submitted: November 28, 2005 Decided: December 27, 2005

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Alan Outlaw, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Arthur Alan Outlaw seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). 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

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, 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 Outlaw 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 -

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
159 F. App'x 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-outlaw-ca4-2005.