US v. Alan Sylvester, No. 09-6435 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6435 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALAN SYLVESTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00156-JFM-1; 1:08-cv-02606-JFM) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: July 1, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alan Sylvester, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alan Sylvester 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 by U.S.C. find the of the § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims showing by that district denial of (2006). demonstrating any 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 Sylvester has not made Sylvester s the requisite motion for dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before a showing. certificate Accordingly, of we appealability deny and We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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.