US v. Woodberry
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER R. WOODBERRY, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:02-cr-40; 4:05-cv-1440)
November 30, 2007
January 23, 2008
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher R. Woodberry, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Christopher Raphael Woodberry seeks to appeal the
district court's order denying relief on his 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 Woodberry has not made the requisite showing.* Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Woodberry's motion to expedite the appeal.
We also deny
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
To the extent that the district court erred in finding that several of Woodberry's ineffective assistance claims were precluded because they were encompassed in our decision on direct appeal, we have reviewed these claims on the merits and conclude that no certificate of appealability is warranted. See generally United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997) (noting that ineffective assistance claims are not generally cognizable on direct appeal). - 2 -
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?