United States v. Golson ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6938
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MALCOLM EUGENE GOLSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.   Robert G. Doumar, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-01-47)
    Submitted:   September 27, 2005           Decided:   October 3, 2005
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Malcolm Eugene Golson, Appellant Pro Se.        Laura P. Tayman,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Malcolm Eugene Golson, a federal prisoner, seeks to
    appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion.           An appeal may not be taken from
    the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 Golson 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: 05-6938

Filed Date: 10/3/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014