From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Mixson

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Oct 13, 2010
397 F. App'x 868 (4th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 10-6923.

Submitted: September 30, 2010.

Decided: October 13, 2010.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:08-cr-00043-gec-mfu-1).

Rondall Clyde Mixson, Appellant pro se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Rondall Clyde Mixson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 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). 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 isdebatable, 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 Mixson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Mixson's motions to produce court recordsand to appoint counsel. 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. Mixson

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Oct 13, 2010
397 F. App'x 868 (4th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

U.S. v. Mixson

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rondall Clyde MIXSON…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Oct 13, 2010

Citations

397 F. App'x 868 (4th Cir. 2010)