US v. Raymond London
Filing
920100304
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7623
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAYMOND ANTHONY LONDON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00402-FDW-CH-2; 3:09-cv-00287)
Submitted:
February 25, 2010
Decided:
March 4, 2010
Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Anthony London, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Raymond Anthony London 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 London 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
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?