Cash v. United States , 115 F. App'x 178 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7171
ODESA CASH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(CR-98-424-CCB; CA-01-1333-CCB)
Submitted: November 30, 2004 Decided: December 20, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Odesa Cash, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Manuelian, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Odesa Cash appeals from the district court’s orders
denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion to vacate his sentence,
his motion to reconsider, and his motion to alter or amend the
district’s order denying his motions for a certificate of
appealability and for production of tapes and transcripts at
government expense. An appeal may not be taken to this court 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 jurists of reason 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Cash has
not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. Cash’s pending “Motion to
Hold Appeal in Abeyance” is denied as moot. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -