United States v. Fields

100 F. App'x 928
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Fields. Read the opinion of the Court — 111 F. App'x 148
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 18, 2004·No. 04-6296·Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6296

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DONALD JEROME FIELDS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-00-405; CA-02-980-1)

Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 18, 2004

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Jerome Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Donald Jerome Fields appeals the district court’s order

accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and

denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion to vacate his sentence.

An appeal may not be taken to this court 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 jurists of reason 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Fields has

not made the requisite showing. We therefore 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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 2 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Fields, 100 F. App'x 928 (4th Cir. 2004).

100 F. App'x 928 (United States v. Fields) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Rose v. Lee
252 F.3d 676 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)