United States v. Graves , 146 F. App'x 669 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7115
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    BRODERICK EDWARD GRAVES,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-93-133; CA-04-397)
    Submitted:   October 18, 2005             Decided:   October 25, 2005
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Noell P. Tin, TIN FULTON GREENE & OWEN, PLLC, Charlotte, North
    Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Interim United
    States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Broderick Edward Graves seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order denying as late his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000).     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
    the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
    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
    , 336-38 (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 Graves
    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-7115

Citation Numbers: 146 F. App'x 669

Filed Date: 10/25/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014