United States v. Alexander ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7072
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONALD ALEXANDER, a/k/a Fat Ronald,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:00-cr-
00242-AMD; 1:06-cv-00091-AMD)
Submitted: February 15, 2007 Decided: February 21, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Edward Marr, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Jamie M.
Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, Lynne Ann Battaglia,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Alexander seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 any
assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Alexander 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
*
To the extent Alexander wants relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(2000), he failed to show § 2255 did not provide an adequate and
effective means to test the legality of his conviction and
sentence. See In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 332-34 (4th Cir. 2000).
- 2 -