United States v. Amegashie , 164 F. App'x 371 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6509
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT GORDON AMEGASHIE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District
Judge. (CR-91-203; CA-04-1524)
Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: December 29, 2005
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Gordon Amegashie, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert Amegashie, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his 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 Amegashie has not made the
requisite showing. On appeal, Amegashie challenges his sentence
based on the holding in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220(2005). This court has recently held that Booker is not
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. United
States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -