US v. Shifflett

Filing 920080408

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7584

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEWAYNE ANTHONY SHIFFLETT, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00007-sgw; 7:06-cv-00497-sgw)

Submitted:

March 18, 2008

Decided:

April 8, 2008

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

DeWayne Anthony Shifflett, Appellant Pro Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Se. Ray Burton STATES ATTORNEY,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: DeWayne Anthony Shifflett seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is 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." § 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 Shifflett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Shifflett's

motion for a certificate of appealability, deny his pro se motion for "Permission to file a writ of habeas corpus in the district court and consolidate briefs upon completion," 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 -