United States v. Daniels

304 F. App'x 186

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6853

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRENCE DANIELS, a/k/a Terrance Daniels,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:04-cr-00330-CMC-1; 3:07-cv-70119-CMC)

Submitted: December 10, 2008 Decided: December 23, 2008

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrence Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah Brereton Barbier, William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Terrence Daniels seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and

subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration.

The orders are 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 that Daniels 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