US v. David Shelton

Filing 920100402

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7696 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID JOE SHELTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (1:04-cr-00045-jpj-mfu-1; 1:08-cv-80027) Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 2, 2010 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Noell Peter Tin, Appellant Pro COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Appellee. Se. Dennis H. Lee, Tazewell, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Joe Shelton seeks to appeal the district court's order denying 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. (2006). 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) 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 has not made reviewed the the record and conclude Shelton requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because 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?