US v. McClung
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY PRESTON MCCLUNG, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (5:97-cr-30031-jhm-1; 7:06-cv-00031-jct)
Submitted: September 26, 2006
Decided: September 29, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Preston McClung, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Preston McClung seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 28 U.S.C.
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
§ 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 McClung has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny McClung's motion
for production of records and transcripts, construed as a petition for writ of mandamus, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the
contentions the court
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?