US v. Steve Dias
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. STEVE DIAS, a/k/a Troy, a/k/a O'Neil Guthrie, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:04-cr-00259-HEH-2; 3:09-cv-00334-HEH)
September 10, 2009
September 16, 2009
Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steve Dias, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia N. Hawkins, Michael Cornell Wallace, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Stephen David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Steve Dias seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2009) motion. justice or
The order is not appealable unless a circuit 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
demonstrating assessment is of
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 Dias has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
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?