US v. Travis Dixon, No. 09-6727 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6727 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. TRAVIS DEON DIXON, a/k/a Travis Deonn Dixon, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00173-NCT-1; 1:08-cv00312-NCT-WWD) Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 30, 2009 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Travis Deon Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Travis Deon Dixon seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) 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. of the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find the by that (2006). 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 Dixon has not made the certificate dispense of with requisite showing. * appealability oral argument and Accordingly, dismiss because * the the we deny appeal. facts and We recognize that Begay v. United States, 128 S. Ct. (2008), has abrogated United States v. James, 337 F.3d 387 Cir. 2003). However, Dixon is not entitled to relief on account. United States v. Hunter, 559 F.3d 1188 (11th 2009). 2 a We legal 1581 (4th this Cir. 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.
