US v. Caldwell

Filing 920071129

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7020 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALFRED CALDWELL, a/k/a Big Al, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:92-cr-00113; 2:07-cv-00249) Submitted: November 20, 2007 Decided: November 29, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alfred Caldwell, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alfred Caldwell seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion as an unauthorized, successive motion. unless a circuit justice or The order is not appealable issues a certificate of judge 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 Caldwell 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 -

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?