United States v. Monroe , 144 F. App'x 986 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6849
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    STEVE O’SHEA MONROE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
    District Judge. (CR-01-31; CA-04-34-3)
    Submitted:   September 27, 2005           Decided:   October 3, 2005
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Steve O’Shea Monroe, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Steve O’Shea Monroe, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
    the district court’s order denying relief on his motion 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 for claims
    addressed by a district court 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     or     wrong    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 Monroe 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: 05-6849

Citation Numbers: 144 F. App'x 986

Filed Date: 10/3/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014