US v. Pyne

Filing 920080613

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7466 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES PYNE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:04-cr-00018-AW-3; 8:06-cv-02123-AW) Submitted: May 13, 2008 Decided: June 13, 2008 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Pyne, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Pyne 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 this 28 U.S.C. standard that by any demonstrating reasonable jurists find 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 Pyne 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?