United States v. Lynch ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7116
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GEORGE LYNCH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District
Judge. (CR-00-103; CA-05-464-1)
Submitted: September 27, 2005 Decided: October 4, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
George Lynch, Appellant Pro Se. Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
George Lynch appeals a district court order dismissing
without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition which the
court construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. To the extent
the court denied relief under § 2241, we have reviewed the record
and the district court’s memorandum opinion and order affirm for
the reasons cited by the district court. See United States v.
Lynch, Nos. CA-05-464-1, CR-00-103 (E.D. Va. filed June 7, 2005;
entered June 9, 2005). To the extent the court dismissed the
petition as a second or successive § 2255 motion, an appeal may not
be taken from the final order in a § 2255 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 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
(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 Lynch has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief under
§ 2241, deny Lynch’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
- 2 -
dismiss the appeal from the denial of the § 2255 motion. 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.*
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
*
To the extent Lynch may be seeking authorization under 28
U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a second and successive 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) motion on the basis of the rules announced in United
States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and Blakely v. Washington,
124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), we deny authorization.
- 3 -