United States v. McClain , 115 F. App'x 147 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7413
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY MCCLAIN, a/k/a Ice, a/k/a New York,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-96-179)
Submitted: December 9, 2004 Decided: December 16, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony McClain, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Todd Hagins, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina; Scarlett
Anne Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony McClain seeks to appeal the district court’s
order construing his motion as having been filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) and denying the motion as successive. We find the
court correctly construed the motion as having been filed under
§ 2255. 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 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 McClain has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We also deny McClain’s motion for a stay. 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 -