US v. James Phifer

Filing 920090616

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8313 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JAMES EDWARD PHIFER, a/k/a Rick Daye, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:94-cr-00041-RLV-1; 5:02-cv-00062RLV) Submitted: June 3, 2009 Decided: June 16, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Phifer, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Cave, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Edward Phifer seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion and has moved this court for a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." this 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006). by demonstrating that A prisoner satisfies jurists would standard reasonable find 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 record (4th and Cir. 2001). that We have independently not made reviewed the the conclude Phifer has requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Phifer's motion for a certificate We dispense with oral of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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

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?