US v. Michael Lampkin, No. 09-8253 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8253 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL LAMPKIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:06-cr-00051-FDW-DCK-2; 3:09-cv-00490-FDW) Submitted: April 16, 2010 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. NIEMEYER, Decided: Circuit Judges, April 23, 2010 and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Lampkin, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, Kevin Zolot, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Lampkin seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent constitutional prisoner reasonable a substantial satisfies constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not right. jurists of 28 this by U.S.C. find the of the § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims showing that by of (2006). demonstrating any district denial assessment court is a A that of debatable the or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. court is likewise debatable. 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 Lampkin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.