United States v. Washington , 158 F. App'x 411 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6966
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    RAY WASHINGTON, JR., a/k/a Rocko,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.   Jerome B. Friedman,
    District Judge. (CR-01-97; CA-04-70-4)
    Submitted:   November 23, 2005         Decided:     December 13, 2005
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ray Washington, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Ray Washington, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
    the district court’s order dismissing his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000)
    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 for claims addressed by
    a district court 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    both    that   the   district    court’s     assessment     of   his
    constitutional      claims      is   debatable     or     wrong    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 Washington 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: 05-6966

Citation Numbers: 158 F. App'x 411

Filed Date: 12/13/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014