US v. Myron Aull, No. 08-7032 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7032 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MYRON B. AULL, Defendant - Appellant. No. 08-7035 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MYRON B. AULL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:99-cr-00543-DCN-1; 2:02-cv-02054-DCN; 2:00-cr-00950DCN-1; 2:02-cv-02055-DCN) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 19, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Myron B. Aull, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Myron B. Aull seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard § 2253(c)(2) by (2000). demonstrating that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this 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. record and conclude showing. 2001). We that have Aull independently has not made reviewed the the requisite 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 3
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.
