United States v. Capers ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6186
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN ANTHONY CAPERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:92-cr-00446-DCN-7; 2:05-cv-02143-DCN)
Submitted: May 3, 2006 Decided: May 24, 2006
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Anthony Capers, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John Anthony Capers 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 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 Capers has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Capers’ motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.* We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
*
To the extent Capers’ motion could be construed as a motion
to recall the mandate, an appellate court has the inherent power to
recall its mandate, but this power should only be exercised in
extraordinary circumstances. Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538,
549-50 (1998); Alphin v. Henson, 552 F.2d 1033, 1035 (4th Cir.
1977). Capers has not alleged such extraordinary circumstances.
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -