The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
05-7355•United States of America v. Steven Jeffrey Mullen
05-7355Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 2, 2006
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7355
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
STEVEN JEFFREY MULLEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (CR-01-787)
Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Jeffrey Mullen, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Steven J. Mullen, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying his motion seeking relief from his
sentence and construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An
appeal may not be taken from the final order in a post-conviction
proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge 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 Mullen 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
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.