UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8036
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK LEE SHUMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (2:04−cr−00025−BO−1; 2:07-cv-00021-BO)
Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 26, 2009
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Appeal dismissed; petition denied by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Mark Lee Shuman, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant
United States Attorney, Clay Campbell Wheeler, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Lee Shuman 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 Shuman has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *
Shuman also petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
an order to compel the district court to rule on his claims of
*
We decline to consider the claims raised by Shuman in his
informal brief that were not presented in his § 2255 motion in
the district court. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250
(4th Cir. 1993).
2
actual innocence raised for the first time in his application
for a certificate of appealability. Our review of the docket
sheet reveals that the district court entered an order denying
Shuman’s application for a certificate of appealability on
January 21, 2009. Accordingly, because the district court has
ruled on Shuman’s application, we deny the mandamus petition as
moot. 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.
APPEAL DISMISSED;
PETITION DENIED
3