US v. Clark, No. 05-7814 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7814 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DONALD RAY CLARK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (CR-02-10097; CA-05-595-7) Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 19, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Ray Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Zachary T. Lee, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Donald Ray Clark seeks to appeal the district court s opinion and order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is 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 Clark has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 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.