US v. McRae

Filing 920080312

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7217

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIVARUS MONTIENTO MCRAE, a/k/a Tat-Killer, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:98-cr-00037-F-12; 5:03-cv-00577-F)

Submitted:

March 4, 2008

Decided:

March 12, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tivarus Montiento McRae, Appellant Pro Se. John H. Bennett, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Tivarus Montiento McRae seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, his motion for reconsideration, and his motion for a certificate of appealability. The orders are 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, 68384 (4th Cir. 2001). conclude that We have independently reviewed the record and has not made the requisite showing.

McRae

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny McRae's motion for appointment of counsel, 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 -