United States v. Jarvis , 193 F. App'x 234 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7088
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DOUGLAS ALAN JARVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:91-cr-00070-JAM-1)
Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: August 3, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Douglas Alan Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Douglas Alan Jarvis, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order treating his motion under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2000) as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion
and dismissing it on that basis, and a subsequent order denying
reconsideration. The orders are 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 Jarvis has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability, deny Jarvis’ motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, 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 -