US v. Ronald Dawson, No. 09-7061 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7061 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONALD DAWSON, a/k/a Tree, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:06-cr-00061-FL-1; 5:08-cv-00298-FL) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Dawson, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronald Dawson seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues on a his absent constitutional prisoner a substantial right. jurists constitutional of § 2255 (West Supp. appealability. 28 2009) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable U.S.C.A. certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue 28 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of 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 Dawson 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.