United States v. Fields

100 F. App'x 919
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. No. 04-6296·Published

Opinion

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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (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

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

United States v. Fields, 100 F. App'x 919 (4th Cir. 2004).

100 F. App'x 919 (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)