UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7449
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALBERT NEWTON COOMBS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:99-cr-00069; 1:04-cv-01052)
Submitted: March 25, 2008 Decided: April 10, 2008
Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Albert Newton Coombs, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Albert Newton Coombs seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
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 Coombs has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss
the appeal. We deny as moot Coombs’ motion to place this appeal in
abeyance until March 3, 2008.* We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
*
To the extent Coombs seeks retroactive application of U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1 (2007) (Amendment 706) to his
sentence, see USSG § 1B1.10(c) (Mar. 3, 2008), he may apply for a
reduction in the district court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
(2000).
- 2 -
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -