United States v. Jordan , 286 F. App'x 19 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6191
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM JEROME JORDAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (2:06-cv-00137-SB)
Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 7, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Jerome Jordan, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Jerome Jordan seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
motion. 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
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 Jordan has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jordan’s motion
to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability,
and dismiss the appeal. In light of this disposition, we also deny
Jordan’s motion for preparation of transcripts at government
expense. 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 -