Pruess v. United States , 117 F. App'x 885 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-6810
    GREGORY ROLAND PRUESS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
    District Judge. (CR-97-300; CA-01-59-5)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2004         Decided:     December 21, 2004
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gregory Roland Pruess, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Marie Hoefling,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Gregory    Roland      Pruess   seeks     to    appeal       the    district
    court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of its order
    denying Pruess’ motion for relief filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000).    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a
    § 2255 proceeding 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   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    Pruess   has      not    made     the    requisite          showing.
    Accordingly, we deny Pruess’ motion for remand, 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: 04-6810

Citation Numbers: 117 F. App'x 885

Filed Date: 12/21/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021