United States v. Sims

300 F. App'x 222

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 20, 2008
• Docket: 08-7164
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7164

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JERMAINE JERRELL SIMS, a/k/a Justice, a/k/a Jus,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (3:98-cr-00045-CMH-1)

Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 20, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermaine Jerrell Sims, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Stephan Altimari, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, Kenneth E. Melson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Jermaine Jerrell Sims seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his Motion for Independent

Action for Relief from Judgment. 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 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 Sims 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