United States v. Blue ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6193
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DEMONT CHRISTOPHER BLUE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.     James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (3:97-cr-00131-JRS; 3:06-cv-00012-JRS)
    Submitted: March 23, 2006                   Decided: March 31, 2006
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Demont Christopher Blue, Appellant Pro Se.        Michael Cornell
    Wallace, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Demont C. Blue seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    dismissing as successive his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion.                    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 any assessment of his constitutional claims
    by   the   district      court   is   debatable     or   wrong    and   that   any
    dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise
    debatable.       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 Blue 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: 06-6193

Judges: Wilkinson, Luttig, Williams

Filed Date: 3/31/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024