US v. Mark Shuman

Filing 920090626

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8036

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARK LEE SHUMAN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (2:04-cr-00025-BO-1; 2:07-cv-00021-BO)

Submitted:

June 22, 2009

Decided:

June 26, 2009

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Appeal dismissed; opinion.

petition

denied

by

unpublished

per

curiam

Mark Lee Shuman, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorney, Clay Campbell Wheeler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Mark Lee Shuman seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. judge 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 Shuman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. * Shuman also petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order to compel the district court to rule on his claims of

We decline to consider the claims raised by Shuman in his informal brief that were not presented in his § 2255 motion in the district court. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).

*

2

actual innocence raised for the first time in his application for a certificate of appealability. Our review of the docket

sheet reveals that the district court entered an order denying Shuman's application for a certificate of appealability on

January 21, 2009.

Accordingly, because the district court has

ruled on Shuman's application, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. APPEAL DISMISSED; PETITION DENIED

3