United States v. Grate , 202 F. App'x 607 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6743
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ROBERT A. GRATE, JR., a/k/a Lloyd,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (1:95-cr-00013-AVB; 1:06-cv-113)
    Submitted: September 28, 2006              Decided: October 10, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert A. Grate, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Watkins, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Robert A. Grate, Jr., 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 Grate 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: 06-6743

Citation Numbers: 202 F. App'x 607

Judges: Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Shedd, Traxler

Filed Date: 10/10/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024