US v. Gray, No. 05-6372 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6372 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TODD BRADLEY GRAY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CR-02-72; CA-04-7-4) Submitted: June 15, 2006 Decided: June 19, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Todd Bradley Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Todd Bradley Gray seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration and motion to amend. An order denying a § 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 Gray has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. released on his own recognizance. We deny Gray s motion to be 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.