UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6977
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL ANTHONY JENKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 07-7106
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL ANTHONY JENKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 07-7107
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL ANTHONY JENKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:02-cr-00105-LHT; 1:06-cv-00373-LHT)
Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 11, 2007
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Anthony Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In No. 07-6977, Michael Anthony Jenkins seeks to appeal
the district court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
motion and his subsequent motion for reconsideration. In Nos. 07-
7106/7107, Jenkins has filed a motion for a certificate of
appealability as to these same two orders. The orders are 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 Jenkins has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny Jenkins’ motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeals.* We dispense with oral
*
To the extent that Jenkins seeks to raise new claims in his
informal brief, these claims are not properly before the court.
See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (stating
that issues raised for first time on appeal will not be considered
absent a showing of plain error or a fundamental miscarriage of
justice).
- 3 -
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
- 4 -