US v. Michael Puzey

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998237721-2] Originating case number: 3:00-cr-00057-JPB-JES-16,3:04-cv-00063-JPB-JES Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998415242] [09-7936]

US v. Michael Puzey

Doc. 0

Case: 09-7936 Document: 11

Date Filed: 08/31/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7936 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL PAUL PUZEY, a/k/a Big Pete, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:00-cr-00057-JPB-JES-16; 3:04-cv-00063JPB-JES) Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: August 31, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Paul Puzey, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-7936 Document: 11

Date Filed: 08/31/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Michael court's judge order and Paul Puzey the Fed. seeks to appeal of the the district magistrate motion on his for 28

accepting his a

recommendation R. order Civ. P.

denying of

60(b) relief

reconsideration

prior

denying

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. appealable unless a circuit justice or

The order is not judge issues a

certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, of 369 F.3d

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 363, will 369 not (4th issue Cir. 2004). "a

A certificate

appealability

absent

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the merits, that a When the district court denies satisfies would this standard that claims 473, by the is 484

prisoner

demonstrating district debatable

reasonable of v.

jurists the

find

court's or

assessment Slack

constitutional 529 U.S.

wrong.

McDaniel,

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. at 484-85. that We have independently has not made reviewed the

Slack, 529 U.S. the record and

conclude

Puzey

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny Puzey's motion for appointment of counsel, 2

Case: 09-7936 Document: 11

Date Filed: 08/31/2010

Page: 3

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

3