United States v. Humphries , 193 F. App'x 225 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6420
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TRACY DEMONT HUMPHRIES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (2:91-cr-00153-UA-2; 1:05-cv-00359-JAB)
Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: August 1, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tracy Demont Humphries, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tracy Demont Humphries seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
and denying relief on his motion for modification of sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000), which the district court
construed as a successive 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 that Humphries has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
- 2 -
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -