US v. Owens, No. 04-7832 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7832 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DARRON OWENS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-01-84; CA-04-2004-5-22) Submitted: December 21, 2005 Decided: January 20, 2006 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darron Owens, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Darron Owens seeks to appeal the district court s orders granting summary judgment on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) petition and denying his subsequent motion to reconsider pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. or judge The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 371 (4th Cir. 2004); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Owens 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 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.