US v. Curtis
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, versus MICHAEL CURTIS, Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (2:89-00054-1; 2:05-cv-00949)
June 21, 2007
June 26, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Curtis, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Michael Curtis seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying as successive his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 2 8 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A
certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing § of the denial of A a constitutional satisfies right." this 28 U.S.C. by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See 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 Curtis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Curtis' motion to hold his case in abeyance as moot, and 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 -
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?