United States v. Privott , 158 F. App'x 436 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6674
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ARTHUR W. PRIVOTT, a/k/a Big Bud,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (CR-98-5; CA-99-73)
    Submitted:   November 30, 2005         Decided:     December 15, 2005
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Arthur W. Privott, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Arthur W. Privott seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion after
    remand by this court.            This 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   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 (4th Cir. 2001).             We have independently reviewed the
    record   and    conclude      that   Privott   has   not    made      the   requisite
    showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
    Privott’s motion for appointment of counsel, 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: 05-6674

Citation Numbers: 158 F. App'x 436

Filed Date: 12/15/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014