UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6048
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHEUKMA KENYATA SANDERS, a/k/a Kuma,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00050-RLV-CH-13; 5:09-cv-
00135-RLV)
Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cheukma Kenyata Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas A. O’Malley,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina;
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cheukma Kenyata Sanders 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 Sanders 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
*
We decline to consider Sanders’ claim, raised for the
first time in this court, that the district court applied the
Sentencing Guidelines in a mandatory fashion, and counsel failed
to object. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.
1993).
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3