United States v. Cureton , 115 F. App'x 152 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7483
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TERRY EUGENE CURETON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-00-222; CA-04-226-3)
    Submitted:   December 9, 2004          Decided:     December 16, 2004
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Terry Eugene Cureton, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Terry Eugene Cureton 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   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   Cureton    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: 04-7483

Citation Numbers: 115 F. App'x 152

Filed Date: 12/16/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021