United States v. Wagner , 147 F. App'x 392 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7055
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    THEODORE THOMAS WAGNER,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston.   Patrick Michael Duffy, District
    Judge. (CR-02-181; CA-05-404-PMD-2)
    Submitted:   October 20, 2005             Decided:   October 31, 2005
    Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Theodore Thomas Wagner, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Rhett DeHart,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Theodore Thomas Wagner 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 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 the district
    court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 Wagner 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: 05-7055

Citation Numbers: 147 F. App'x 392

Filed Date: 10/31/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014