US v. Michael Bear

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 1:06-cr-00018-jpj-mfu-1,1:10-cv-80257-jpj-mfu. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998445246] [10-7032, 10-7033]

US v. Michael Bear

Doc. 0

Case: 10-7032 Document: 6

Date Filed: 10/14/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7032 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL DAVID BEAR, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-7033 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL DAVID BEAR, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon and Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00018-jpj-mfu-1; 1:10-cv-80257jpj-mfu; 2:05-cr-00029-jpj-mfu-1; 2:10-cv-80258-jpj-mfu) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 14, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-7032 Document: 6

Date Filed: 10/14/2010

Page: 2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael David Bear, Appellant Pro Se. Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Case: 10-7032 Document: 6

Date Filed: 10/14/2010

Page: 3

PER CURIAM: Michael David Bear seeks to appeal the district

court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motions. 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 right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would

find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. and conclude that Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record Bear has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

3

Case: 10-7032 Document: 6

Date Filed: 10/14/2010

Page: 4

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

4