United States v. Jenkins

87 F. App'x 896

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7496

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SCOTTIE JENKINS,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 03-7497

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-769; CA-03-131-7-13AK)

Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 20, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scottie Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Scottie Jenkins seeks to

appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and the district court’s order denying his

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. The order is

appealable only if 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 conclude that Jenkins has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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

- 3 -