US v. Michael Wallace

Filing 920091104

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6197

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL J. WALLACE, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00012-FDW-CH-1; 3:07-cv-00456-FDW)

Submitted:

October 22, 2009

Decided:

November 4, 2009

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael J. Wallace, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Cave, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Michael J. Wallace seeks to appeal the district

court's orders denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions. The district court's orders

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate (2006). of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. by § 2253(c)(2) demonstrating (2006). that A prisoner satisfies would this find

standard

reasonable

jurists

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. See 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). that we at We have independently has not made motion reviewed the for a the record and

conclude

Wallace deny

requisite

showing. of a of

Accordingly, transcript

Wallace's

production

government

expense,

deny

certificate

appealability, 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