United States v. Outlaw
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.
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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
159 F. App'x 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-outlaw-ca4-2005.