United States v. Buculei , 117 F. App'x 273 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7261
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CATALIN LIVIO BUCULEI,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.   William M. Nickerson, Senior District
    Judge. (CR-99-0332; CA-03-995-WMN)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2004         Decided:     December 22, 2004
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Catalin Livio Buculei, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio,
    United States Attorney, Barbara Slaymaker Sale, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Andrew Clayton White, Lynne Ann Battaglia, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Catalin Livio Buculei seeks to appeal from the district
    court’s order denying relief on 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
    his   or    her     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 Buculei 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: 04-7261

Citation Numbers: 117 F. App'x 273

Judges: Michael, King, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/22/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024