United States v. Deel , 159 F. App'x 516 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6152
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    FRANKLIN DEEL,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District
    Judge. (CR-03-17; CA-04-422-7)
    Submitted:   November 30, 2005         Decided:     December 27, 2005
    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Franklin Deel, Appellant Pro Se.   Jennifer Rebecca Bockhorst,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Franklin Deel seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000).
    The order is 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   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, 
    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 Deel 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: 05-6152

Citation Numbers: 159 F. App'x 516

Filed Date: 12/27/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021