United States v. Warren , 193 F. App'x 240 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6607
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT EARL WARREN, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:01-cr-100; 1:04-cv-01144-WLO)
Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: August 3, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Earl Warren, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Robert Earl Warren, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying his motion to amend and accepting a
magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) motion. The orders are 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 Warren has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to
proceed in formal pauperis, 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 -