United States v. Flood , 115 F. App'x 642 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7128
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DARRYL JAMES FLOOD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (CR-02-413; CA-03-1475)
Submitted: December 9, 2004 Decided: December 15, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darryl James Flood, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Joseph Rossi, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Darryl James Flood 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 (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 Flood has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We deny Flood’s motion to hold this appeal in abeyance for
two cases in which the Supreme Court has granted certiorari. See
United States v. Booker, __U.S.__, 125 S. Ct. 11 (U.S. Aug. 2,
2004) (No. 04-104); United States v. Fanfan, __U.S.__, 125 S. Ct.
12 (U.S. Aug. 2, 2004) (No. 04-105). 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 -