United States v. Baptiste , 201 F. App'x 914 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6790
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    HARRY RAMONE BAPTISTE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
    District Judge. (5:99-cr-59-V; 5:02-cv-00028)
    Submitted:   September 20, 2006           Decided:   October 2, 2006
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Harry Ramone Baptiste, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Harry    Ramone   Baptiste   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   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 Baptiste 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: 06-6790

Citation Numbers: 201 F. App'x 914

Judges: Motz, Per Curiam, Shedd, Williams

Filed Date: 10/2/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024