US v. Matthew Propst
Filing
920090306
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7928
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MATTHEW ALLEN PROPST, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (3:06-cr-00017-NKM-MFU-12; 3:08-cv-80024-NKMMFU)
Submitted:
February 26, 2009
Decided:
March 6, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew McGavock Robinson, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. Ronald Mitchell Huber, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Matthew court's motion. judge order Allen Propst relief seeks his to 28 appeal U.S.C. the district (2006)
denying
on
§ 2255
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a
A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find the that of the denial of a A that the or
substantial 28
constitutional prisoner reasonable
right." this would by
§ 2253(c)(2) by any
(2006).
satisfies jurists
demonstrating assessment is of
constitutional
claims
district
court
debatable
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 Propst has not made the of requisite showing. and Accordingly, dismiss the the we deny a We legal
certificate dispense
appealability oral argument
appeal. and
with
because
facts
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?