United States v. Hagwood ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6086
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    BURTON BRAXTON HAGWOOD,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
    District Judge. (3:00-CR-00013-WCB-1; 3:00-CV-00113-WCB)
    Submitted: February 23, 2006                    Decided: March 6, 2006
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Burton Braxton Hagwood, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Gerald Nazzaro,
    Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Burton Braxton Hagwood, a federal prisoner, seeks to
    appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of
    the magistrate judge and denying as successive 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     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
    ,
    336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v.
    Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).                We have independently
    reviewed the record and conclude that Hagwood 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: 06-6086

Judges: Widener, Niemeyer, King

Filed Date: 3/6/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024