United States v. James , 197 F. App'x 244 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6027
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
IVANDER JAMES, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 06-6582
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
IVANDER JAMES, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (4:01-cr-00965-CWH; 4:05-cv-00096-CWH)
Submitted: August 9, 2006 Decided: August 31, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ivander James, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Ivander James, Jr., seeks
to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and denying reconsideration. The
orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 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.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any
assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
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 James has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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
- 3 -