US v. Frank Ballance, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FRANK W. BALLANCE, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:04-cr-00282-BO-1; 5:06-cv-00365-BO)
September 16, 2008
September 23, 2008
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank W. Ballance, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Dennis W. Duffy, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Frank W. Ballance, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying Ballance's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) claims. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. (2000). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a 28
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). demonstrating that
A prisoner satisfies this standard by 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 Ballance has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 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 -
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?