US v. Roddie Dumas, Sr.

Filing 920090423

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7929

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RODDIE PHILLIP DUMAS, SR., Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:04-cr-00083-FDW-DCK-1; 3:08-cv-00270-FDW)

Submitted:

April 16, 2009

Decided:

April 23, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roddie Phillip Dumas, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Gretchen C.F. Shappert, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Roddie Phillip Dumas, Sr., seeks to appeal the

district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional prisoner reasonable right." this would by 28 U.S.C. standard find the that § 2253(c)(2) by any (2006). A that the or

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 Dumas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Dumas' motion with to place the case in abeyance the as

We deny We legal

moot. and

dispense

oral

argument

because

facts

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED 2