United States of America v. Floyd Junior Powell, a/k/a Dick

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7989
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FLOYD JUNIOR POWELL, a/k/a Dick,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-99-12-6; CA-02-138-5)
Submitted: March 10, 2006 Decided: April 14, 2006
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Floyd Junior Powell, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Floyd Junior Powell, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
motion. The order is not appealable unless this court 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 the district
court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and
that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are
also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Powell has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Powell’s
motions for appointment of counsel, for release after judgment, to
vacate his convictions and dismiss indictment, and for oral
argument. 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 of 2 --