United States v. Samuel , 195 F. App'x 190 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6657
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DARRELL W. SAMUEL,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.    Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (3:94-cr-00773-JFA)
    Submitted:   August 16, 2006                 Decided:   August 24, 2006
    Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Darrell W. Samuel, Appellant Pro Se.      Christopher Todd Hagins,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Darrell W. Samuel seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order construing his 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2) (2000) motion as a
    successive 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion, and dismissing for lack
    of jurisdiction.    The order is 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 Samuel 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-6657

Citation Numbers: 195 F. App'x 190

Judges: Hamilton, King, Michael, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 8/24/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024