UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6469
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER R. WOODBERRY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:02-cr-40; 4:05-cv-1440)
Submitted: November 30, 2007 Decided: January 23, 2008
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher R. Woodberry, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Raphael Woodberry 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 Woodberry has
not made the requisite showing.* Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny
Woodberry’s motion to expedite the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
*
To the extent that the district court erred in finding that
several of Woodberry’s ineffective assistance claims were precluded
because they were encompassed in our decision on direct appeal, we
have reviewed these claims on the merits and conclude that no
certificate of appealability is warranted. See generally United
States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997) (noting that
ineffective assistance claims are not generally cognizable on
direct appeal).
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -