US v. Cornell

Filing 920070608

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6362 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEWIS THOMAS CORNELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (1:00-cr-00204-WLO; 1:06-cv-00916-WLO) Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 8, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lewis Thomas Cornell, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewitt Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lewis Thomas Cornell seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, construing Cornell's motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.A. 3582(c) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007), as a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. 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 Cornell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of We dispense with oral appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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?