UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8551
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARL EDWARD BENNETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (0:07-cv-70021-JFA; 0:04-cr-00657-JFA-2)
Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 4, 2009
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl Edward Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carl Edward Bennett seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Bennett has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. ∗ We
∗
To the extent Bennett also seeks to appeal from the
district court’s order, lowering his sentence from 360 months of
imprisonment to 292 months under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (West
2000 & Supp. 2009), we note that he is entitled to no other
relief. See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 251-52 (4th
Cir. 2009) (noting that when a sentence is within the Sentencing
Guidelines applicable at the time of the original sentencing, a
district court is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce a
defendant’s sentence below the amended sentencing range).
2
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
3