US v. Morton
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TROY LAMAR MORTON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00242-5)
December 21, 2006
January 3, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy Lamar Morton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Troy L. Morton seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his purported "Motion Requesting a
Certificate of Appealability," which the district court construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion,* and his motion for
reconsideration of that order. unless a circuit justice or
Neither order is not appealable judge issues a certificate of
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, A certificate of appealability
369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).
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, 68384 (4th Cir. 2001). conclude that We have independently reviewed the record and 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
This was Morton's third § 2255 motion. Previously, we denied Morton authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Morton, No. 05-7887, 167 F. App'x 970 (4th Cir. 2006) (unpublished). - 2 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
- 3 -
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?