US v. William Lowery, III

Filing 920090812

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM JAMES LOWERY, III, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:05-cr-00524-HMH-3; 8:08-cv-70040-HMH)

Submitted:

July 28, 2009

Decided:

August 12, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William James Lowery, III, Appellant Pro Se. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: William James Lowery, III, seeks to appeal the

district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) 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 Lowery has not made the of requisite showing. * and Accordingly, dismiss the the we deny a We legal

certificate dispense

appealability oral argument

appeal. and

with

because

facts

Although the district court reviewed the speedy trial claim under the Sixth Amendment instead of under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (2006), there was no ineffective assistance of counsel related to the speedy trial claim under the Act, as Lowery claimed.

*

2

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

DISMISSED

3