United States v. Eatmon

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7676
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BENNIE JAY EATMON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CR-00-127-BO; CA-03-679-5-BO)
Submitted: December 16, 2005 Decided: February 2, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bennie Jay Eatmon, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis M. Duffy, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Bennie Jay Eatmon, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order denying 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 Eatmon’s supplemental filings and conclude that Eatmon
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant
Eatmon’s motions to amend, we deny a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Eatmon’s motion for
discovery, motion for abeyance, and motion for a new trial.
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 -