United States v. Rosemond , 194 F. App'x 113 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6719
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CALVIN RICO ROSEMOND,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-02-435; CA-05-380-6)
Submitted: July 31, 2006 Decided: August 17, 2006
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Calvin Rico Rosemond, Appellant Pro Se. Regan Alexandra Pendleton,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Rico Rosemond seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 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 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 Rosemond has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny Rosemond’s motion for 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
*
We decline to consider those claims Rosemond asserts for the
first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250
(4th Cir. 1993).
2