US v. Adams, No. 06-6097 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6097 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY ADAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00049-BO; 5:04-cv-00629-BO) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 24, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony Adams seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. not appealable unless a circuit issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). certificate of appealability. justice or The order is judge A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. § 2253(c)(2) demonstrating (2000). that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists this would 28 U.S.C. standard find that by 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 that Adams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Adams motion to place the case in abeyance, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and materials legal before 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.