United States v. Mullen ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7355
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    STEVEN JEFFREY MULLEN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.   C. Weston Houck, Senior District
    Judge. (CR-01-787)
    Submitted: February 23, 2006                    Decided: March 2, 2006
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Steven Jeffrey Mullen, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker
    Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Steven J. Mullen, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district court’s order denying his motion seeking relief from his
    sentence and construed as a 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion.             An
    appeal may not be taken from the final order in a post-conviction
    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 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 (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 Mullen 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: 05-7355

Filed Date: 3/2/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021