United States v. James ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6056
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DION JAMES, a/k/a Delvin Percy James,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.   Cameron McGowan Currie, District
    Judge. (CR-00-67; CA-04-22789)
    Submitted: May 18, 2006                          Decided: May 31, 2006
    Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dion James, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr.,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Dion James seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
    denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion and his motion
    for reconsideration.   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 that James 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: 06-6056

Judges: Widener, Wilkinson, Hamilton

Filed Date: 5/31/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024