United States v. Dangerfield , 82 F. App'x 307 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7061
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    AARON WILLIAM DANGERFIELD, a/k/a Dusty,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
    Judge. (CR-02-32-A, CA-03-549-AM)
    Submitted:   November 19, 2003            Decided:   December 4, 2003
    Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Aaron William Dangerfield, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Edward Rich,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Aaron William Dangerfield seeks to appeal the district court’s
    orders denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000), and denying his motion for 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   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 Dangerfield has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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: 03-7061

Citation Numbers: 82 F. App'x 307

Filed Date: 12/4/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014