US v. Mark Shuman

Filing 920090626

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8036 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARK LEE SHUMAN, Defendant - Appellant.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 petition denied by unpublished per curiam Mark Lee Shuman, Appellant Pro Se.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States Attorney, Clay Campbell Wheeler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?