United States v. Grin , 159 F. App'x 506 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6296
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JOSEPH TITO GRIN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham.     James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CR-98-257; CA-04-376-JAB)
    Submitted: December 15, 2005               Decided: December 20, 2005
    Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Joseph Tito Grin, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Joseph Tito Grin seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion.           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   both     that   the   district    court’s    assessment      of   his
    constitutional      claims      is    debatable   and   that      any    dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
    wrong.     See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336 (2003);
    Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).              We have independently reviewed the
    record and conclude that Grin has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly,      we     deny    Grin’s    motion    for     a    certificate         of
    appealability, deny Grin’s motion to appoint counsel 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-6296

Citation Numbers: 159 F. App'x 506

Filed Date: 12/20/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021