US v. Damian Bey

Filing 920090901

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6027

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAMIAN G. BEY, a/k/a Damien Giovanni Bey, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:03-cr-00252-BR-1; 5:05-cv-00323)

Submitted:

August 26, 2009

Decided: September 1, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Judges.

Chief

Judge,

and

GREGORY

and

SHEDD,

Circuit

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damian G. Bey, Appellant Pro Se. North Carolina, for Appellee.

Mary Jude Darrow, Raleigh,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Damian G. Bey seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion seeking reconsideration of the denial of 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); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2006). 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 have independently not made reviewed the the record and

conclude

Bey

has

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny Bey's motion for transmittal of records, we deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2