Chavis v. US, No. 07-7355 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7355 HERBERT CHAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, Judge; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; MICHAEL T.W. BELL, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00291) Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 25, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herbert Chavis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Herbert Chavis, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s orders construing his action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition and denying the petition and Chavis motion for reconsideration. not appealable unless a circuit issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). certificate of appealability. justice or The orders are judge A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. § 2253(c)(2) demonstrating (2000). that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this 28 U.S.C. standard find that by 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 Chavis 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.