United States v. Marshall

142 F. App'x 757

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6568

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JERMEER MARSHALL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CR-00-60; CA-03-358-7)

Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: September 2, 2005

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermeer Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Jermeer Marshall seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion to reconsider a prior order denying relief

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken

from the final order in a habeas proceeding unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir.

2004) (applying the certificate of appealability requirement to

appellate review of the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion).

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 that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is 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 Marshall 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

- 2 - materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -