United States of America v. United States, No. 2:06-cv-00030 W.D.N.C. Apr. 6, 2007 . The

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6804
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ONE MALE JUVENILE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (2:07-cv-00005; 2:06-cv-00030; 2:01-cr-00004)
Submitted: September 12, 2007 Decided: September 25, 2007
Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
One Male Juvenile, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
One Male Juvenile (1MJ) seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000)
petition and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.
Regarding the denial of 1MJ’s § 2241 petition, we have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. One Male Juvenile v.
United States, No. 2:06-cv-00030 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 6, 2007).
The order denying relief on 1MJ’s § 2255 motion is not
appealable 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 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 1MJ has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny 1MJ’s motion for a certificate of
appealability, deny as moot his motion to expedite the appeal, and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --