United States v. Distance-Bey

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7732
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BERNARD DISTANCE-BEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(CR-95-236-L, CA-98-1546-L)
Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 17, 2003
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bernard Distance-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Bernard Distance-Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(2000). 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, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Distance-Bey
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Distance-
Bey’s motion for appointment of counsel, 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