UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM JAMES LOWERY, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:05-cr-00524-HMH-3; 8:08-cv-70040-HMH)
Submitted: July 28, 2009 Decided: August 12, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William James Lowery, III, Appellant Pro Se. Regan Alexandra
Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William James Lowery, III, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2009) 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 Lowery has
not made the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
*
Although the district court reviewed the speedy trial
claim under the Sixth Amendment instead of under the Speedy
Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (2006), there was no ineffective
assistance of counsel related to the speedy trial claim under
the Act, as Lowery claimed.
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3