United States v. Brooks , 291 F. App'x 532 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7460
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY EUGENE BROOKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (4:05-00006-HCM; 4:07-cv-00010-HCM)
Submitted: January 30, 2008 Decided: August 21, 2008
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Eugene Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Walker Putney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Eugene Brooks seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on 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 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 Brooks has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Brooks’
motion to amend or correct his informal brief, we deny his motion
to transfer, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the
appeal. We deny as moot Brooks’ motion for release on bond pending
review. 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 -