United States v. Smith ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6835
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ALFRED SMITH,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
    Judge. (CR-00-10102; CA-05-282-7)
    Submitted:   July 27, 2005                 Decided:   August 5, 2005
    Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Alfred Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Alfred Smith, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district court’s order dismissing as successive his motion filed
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000).          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     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
    ,
    336-38 (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 Smith 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: 05-6835

Filed Date: 8/5/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014