US v. Smith, No. 06-8064 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 15, 2007.

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-8064 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GREGG LAMONT SMITH, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:02-cr-00215-AW; 8:05-cv-02532-AW) Submitted: September 25, 2008 Decided: October 22, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregg Lamont Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Pauze, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gregg Lamont appeal the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent constitutional prisoner a substantial right. jurists constitutional of appealability. (2000) 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable his district motion. a on to order issues relief seeks court s judge denying Smith 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that (2000). 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 Smith 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.