US v. Mark Shuman, No. 08-8036 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8036 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARK LEE SHUMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (2:04 cr 00025 BO 1; 2:07-cv-00021-BO) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 26, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Appeal dismissed; opinion. petition denied by unpublished per curiam Mark Lee Shuman, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorney, Clay Campbell Wheeler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark Lee Shuman seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent constitutional prisoner a substantial right. jurists constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that any district of (2006). demonstrating assessment court is a A that of debatable the 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 Shuman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. * Shuman also petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order to compel the district court to rule on his claims of * We decline to consider the claims raised by Shuman in his informal brief that were not presented in his § 2255 motion in the district court. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). 2 actual innocence raised for the first time in his application for a certificate of appealability. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court entered an order denying Shuman s application January 21, 2009. for a certificate of appealability on Accordingly, because the district court has ruled on Shuman s application, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. APPEAL DISMISSED; PETITION DENIED 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.
