US v. Julius Claytor
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JULIUS CHRISTOPHER CLAYTOR, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:05-cr-00007-jct-mfu-1; 7:08-cv-80051-jct-mfu)
June 18, 2009
June 25, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Julius Christopher Claytor, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Julius Christopher Claytor seeks to appeal the
district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion, as well as its order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. appealable unless a circuit justice or The order is not judge issues a A "a
certificate of appealability. certificate of appealability
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). will not issue absent
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
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 has not made reviewed the the
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability We dispense with oral argument because
and dismiss the appeal.
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?