United States v. Smith ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7456
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    GEORGE SMITH,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
    Judge. (CR-00-343)
    Submitted:   February 13, 2006            Decided:   March 23, 2006
    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    George Smith, Appellant Pro Se. John Staige Davis, V, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    George P. Smith 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
    , 336-38 (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 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: 04-7456

Judges: Luttig, Michael, Per Curiam, Traxler

Filed Date: 3/23/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024