United States v. Anderson , 115 F. App'x 173 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-6554
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ERNEST ALEXANDER ANDERSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
    Judge. (CR-00-31; CA-02-851-7)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2004             Decided:   December 20, 2004
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ernest Alexander Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.    Bruce A. Pagel,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Ernest Alexander Anderson, a federal prisoner, 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 Anderson has not made the
    requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Anderson’s motion for 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: 04-6554

Citation Numbers: 115 F. App'x 173

Judges: Michael, King, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/20/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024