US v. Frederick McKenzie, No. 08-8338 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8338 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FREDERICK ABRAHAM MCKENZIE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:04-cr-00556-TLW-1; 4:07-cv-70065-TLW) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and March 17, 2009 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick Abraham McKenzie, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Frederick Abraham McKenzie 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 right. satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional 28 this would claims by U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) standard find the that district by (2006). demonstrating A any assessment court is that of debatable the 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 McKenzie has not made the requisite showing. motion to seal the informal Accordingly, we deny McKenzie s brief, appealability, and dismiss the appeal. deny a certificate of 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.