US v. Largent, No. 05-6750 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6750 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL ANDREW LARGENT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CR-02-38; CA-04-1-3) Submitted: March 10, 2006 Decided: September 25, 2006 Before LUTTIG,* MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Andrew Largent, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). * Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). PER CURIAM: Michael Andrew Largent seeks to appeal the district court s order adopting the magistrate judge s recommendation to deny relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. justice or This order is judge issues a 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) standard (2000). A prisoner satisfies this by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See 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 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Largent 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.