United States v. Fuller

146 F. App'x 674

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7186

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BENNY FULLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-190; CA-05-1513-6-GRA)

Submitted: September 27, 2005 Decided: October 4, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benny Fuller, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Benny Fuller, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) as time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act of 1996. 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

for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that the

district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong 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 conclude that Fuller

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

- 2 - adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -