United States v. Frierson , 158 F. App'x 429 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7109
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JERRY L. FRIERSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    No. 05-7249
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JERRY L. FRIERSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.   Cameron McGowan Currie, District
    Judge. (CR-03-631; CA-04-22984)
    Submitted:   November 28, 2005         Decided:     December 14, 2005
    Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jerry L. Frierson, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    In these consolidated appeals, Jerry L. Frierson, a
    federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
    denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion and denying
    reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b). The orders are
    not   appealable     unless   a    circuit    justice    or   judge    issues    a
    certificate of appealability.         
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000); see
    Reid v. Angelone, 
    369 F.3d 363
     (4th Cir. 2004).               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).
    This standard is satisfied by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
    would   find   the      district    court’s     assessment      of    Frierson’s
    constitutional claims 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
    Frierson has not made the requisite showing.            Accordingly, we deny
    a   certificate    of   appealability    and   dismiss    the   appeals.        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
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-7109, 05-7249

Citation Numbers: 158 F. App'x 429

Judges: Wilkinson, Duncan, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/14/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024