United States v. Simon

303 F. App'x 162
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided December 18, 2008·No. 08-8056·Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8056

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

STALIN SIMON,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. David A. Faber, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00408-DAF)

Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 18, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stalin Simon, Appellant Pro Se. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Stalin Simon seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and order

denying his motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

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 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 Simon 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. Simon, 303 F. App'x 162 (4th Cir. 2008).

303 F. App'x 162 (United States v. Simon) — 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)