US v. Phillip Vaughan, No. 08-8038 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8038 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PHILLIP MARK VAUGHAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (3:01-cr-00011-LHT-1; 3:08-cv-00330-LHT) Submitted: January 13, 2009 Before WILLIAMS, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and TRAXLER January 20, 2009 and KING, Circuit Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip Mark Vaughan, Appellant Pro Se. Martens, Assistant United States Attorney, Carolina, for Appellee. Matthew Theodore Charlotte, North Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Phillip Mark § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent constitutional prisoner a substantial right. jurists constitutional U.S.C. district § 2255 appealability. (2000) 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable of 28 the The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or certificate his appeal motion. a on to order issues relief seeks court s judge denying Vaughan 28 U.S.C. this would claims by showing the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that (2000). demonstrating any district of assessment court is a A that of the 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 Vaughan has not made the certificate dispense of with requisite showing. appealability oral argument and Accordingly, dismiss because the the we deny appeal. facts and a We 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.