United States v. Alexander , 117 F. App'x 274 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7247
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TONY B. ALEXANDER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CA-98-106-3)
Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 22, 2004
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tony B. Alexander, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tony Alexander seeks to appeal from the district court’s
orders denying relief on his motions filed following the denial of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The orders are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v.
Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 or her 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
Alexander has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
To the extent that Alexander’s notice of appeal and
appellate brief can be construed as a motion for authorization to
file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See
United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
- 2 -
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -