United States v. Smith ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6169
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    HAROLD DEAN SMITH,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
    Chief District Judge. (CR-00-376; CA-04-1078-1)
    Submitted:   July 27, 2005                 Decided:   August 2, 2005
    Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Harold Dean Smith, Appellant Pro Se.     Clifton Thomas Barrett,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Harold Dean Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000).     An appeal may not be taken 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 for claims addressed by
    a district court 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 Smith 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: 05-6169

Judges: Traxler, King, Duncan

Filed Date: 8/2/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024