US v. Roddie Dumas, Sr., No. 08-7929 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7929 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RODDIE PHILLIP DUMAS, SR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:04-cr-00083-FDW-DCK-1; 3:08-cv-00270-FDW) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roddie Phillip Dumas, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Gretchen C.F. Shappert, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roddie Phillip Dumas, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional prisoner reasonable right. satisfies jurists constitutional 28 this would claims by U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) standard find the by that demonstrating any district (2006). assessment court is 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 Dumas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Dumas motion dispense with to place oral the argument case in because abeyance the as facts deny a We deny moot. and 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.