US v. Odman, No. 06-6142 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6142 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OWEN ODMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (4:96-cr-00053-1; 1:04-cv-00044) Submitted: June 26, 2006 Decided: July 27, 2006 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Owen Odman, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Owen Odman seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. justice or The order is judge issues a 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. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this 28 U.S.C. standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (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 Odman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Odman s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before 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.