US v. Dean Sawyer

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998557595-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998532987-2], updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 2:07-cr-00125-RBS-TEM-5,2:09-cv-00634-RBS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998707108]. Mailed to: Sawyer. [11-6134]

Appeal: 11-6134

Document: 37

Date Filed: 10/24/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6134

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEAN CURTIS SAWYER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:07-cr-00125-RBS-TEM-5; 2:09-cv-00634-RBS)

Submitted:

October 6, 2011

Decided:

October 24, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dean Curtis Sawyer, Appellant Pro Se.
Laura Pellatiro Tayman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6134

Document: 37

Date Filed: 10/24/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Dean
court’s

order

Curtis

Sawyer

dismissing

(West Supp. 2011) motion.

as

seeks

to

untimely

appeal

his

28

the

district

U.S.C.A.

§

2255

The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28

U.S.C.

§

2253(c)(1)(B)

(2006).

A

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2006).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

ruling

is

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

denial of a constitutional right.
We

have

independently

reviewed

the

record

Sawyer has not made the requisite showing.

and

conclude

that

Accordingly, we deny

Sawyer’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.

We deny Sawyer’s motion for appointment of counsel.

We

with

dispense

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 11-6134

Document: 37

Date Filed: 10/24/2011

Page: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3