United States v. Haynes ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6457
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT STANLEY HAYNES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CR-99-67, CA-02-256-1)
Submitted: June 20, 2003 Decided: July 11, 2003
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Stanley Haynes, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Wayne Miller, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert Stanley Haynes 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, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Haynes 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