From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Bear

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Oct 14, 2010
397 F. App'x 877 (4th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

Nos. 10-7032, 10-7033.

Submitted: September 28, 2010.

Decided: October 14, 2010.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon and Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00018-jpj-mfu-1; 1:10-cv-80257-jpj-mfu; 2:05-cr-00029-jpj-mfu-1; 2:10-cv-80258-jpjmfu).

Michael David Bear, Appellant Pro Se. Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Michael David Bear seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motions. 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bear has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Bear

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Oct 14, 2010
397 F. App'x 877 (4th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

U.S. v. Bear

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael David BEAR…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Oct 14, 2010

Citations

397 F. App'x 877 (4th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

West v. Joyner

In this case, petitioner generally states that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, but does not…

Tucker v. Perry

See United States v. Bear, No. 1:06CR00018, 2:05CR00029, 2010 WL 2773309, *2-3 (W.D. Va. 2010) ("Bear does…