United States v. Chamberlain ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6652
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LIONEL S. CHAMBERLAIN, a/k/a Lonnie,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.
(CR-97-40, CA-01-647-7)
Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 16, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lionel S. Chamberlain, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge Mott,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lionel Chamberlain seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Chamberlain cannot
appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a
certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas
appellant meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and
that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are
also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. ,
123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude Chamberlain 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