US v. William Hurley

Filing 920090323

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8309

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM STEVEN HURLEY, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David Schroeder, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00042-TDS-1; 1:07-cv-00745TDS-PTS)

Submitted:

March 17, 2009

Decided:

March 23, 2009

Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Steven Hurley, Appellant Pro Se. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: William court's order Steven Hurley the seeks to appeal of the district

accepting

recommendation

the

magistrate

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is 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

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. by § 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would this find

standard

demonstrating

reasonable

jurists

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). that we We have independently has not made motion reviewed the for the record and

conclude

Hurley deny

requisite a

showing. of

Accordingly,

Hurley's

certificate

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