US v. McDaniel, No. 05-7593 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7593 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE DEMARCUS MCDANIEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-02-388; CA-04-576-FWB) Submitted: May 1, 2006 Decided: August 11, 2006 Before LUTTIG,* TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Demarcus McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Randall Stuart Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Willie Demarcus McDaniel, a federal prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court s order adopting the magistrate judge s report and recommendation denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 constitutional the claims district is court s debatable and assessment that any of his dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are likewise debatable or wrong. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McDaniel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny McDaniel s request for a certificate of appealability and dismiss his 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.