UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7584
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEWAYNE ANTHONY SHIFFLETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (5:05-cr-00007-sgw; 7:06-cv-00497-sgw)
Submitted: March 18, 2008 Decided: April 8, 2008
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
DeWayne Anthony Shifflett, Appellant Pro Se. Ray Burton
Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
DeWayne Anthony Shifflett 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 Shifflett has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Shifflett’s
motion for a certificate of appealability, deny his pro se motion
for “Permission to file a writ of habeas corpus in the district
court and consolidate briefs upon completion,” 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
- 2 -