US v. Simmons

Filing 920070920

Opinion

Filed:

September 20, 2007

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6794 (2:06-cr-00979-DCN; 3:05-cv-02723-MBS) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SHAWN SIMMONS, Defendant - Appellant.

O R D E R The court amends its opinion filed September 17, 2007, as follows: On the cover sheet, in the caption and in the attorney data section, and on page 2, line l of text, the appellant's name is corrected to read "Shawn Simmons."

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6794

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SHAWN SIMMONS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (2:06-cr-00979-DCN; 3:05-cv-02723-MBS) Submitted: September 11, 2007 Decided: September 17, 2007

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shawn Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Shawn Simmons seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. not appealable unless a circuit justice or The order is issues a A

judge

certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).

certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." § 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would that this 28 U.S.C. standard that by his

demonstrating constitutional

reasonable are

jurists and

find any

claims

debatable

dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). record and conclude that We have independently reviewed the Simmons has not made the requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the

dismiss the appeal. facts and legal before

contentions the court

materials

would

decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 2 -