United States v. Tabor ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7367
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    FELTON TABOR,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (CR-01-50, CA-03-2079-6-20)
    Submitted:   December 11, 2003         Decided:     December 22, 2003
    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Melisa White Gay, GAY & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Mt. Pleasant, South
    Carolina, for Appellant.    Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Felton Tabor seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000)
    and the court’s order denying his motion to reconsider pursuant to
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).   The orders are appealable only if 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
    his constitutional claims are 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
    Tabor 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: 03-7367

Filed Date: 12/22/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014