United States v. Yarborough

330 F. App'x 34

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6236

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JESSIE YARBOROUGH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:05-cr-00809-GRA-2; 8:07-cv-70142-GRA)

Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 4, 2009

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jessie Yarborough, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah Brereton Barbier, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Jessie Yarborough seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009)

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th

Cir. 2004). 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) (2006). 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 Yarborough has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny Yarborough’s motion for

transcripts at government expense, 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