Filed: Nov. 20, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7167 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CLEVELAND MCLEAN, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:90-cr-00105-HCM-TEM-5) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 20, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clevela
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7167 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CLEVELAND MCLEAN, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:90-cr-00105-HCM-TEM-5) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 20, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clevelan..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7167
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CLEVELAND MCLEAN, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:90-cr-00105-HCM-TEM-5)
Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 20, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cleveland McLean, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Charles Philip
Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cleveland McLean, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2008) motion. The order 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 McLean has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability; deny McLean’s motions to
consolidate, expand the certificate of appealability, and for
attorney’s fees; and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3