UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7863
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TYREF MCNEAL, a/k/a Beans,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00050-IMK; 1:06-cv-00139-IMK)
Submitted: March 21, 2007 Decided: June 6, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyref McNeal, Appellant Pro Se. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tyref McNeal seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 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). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that McNeal has not
made the 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
*
Though we conclude McNeal may assert his claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel in relation to his guilty plea despite his
waiver of collateral review, we find he fails to qualify for a
certificate of appealability as to that claim.
- 2 -