United States v. McBride

101 F. App'x 928

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GEORGE RICHARD MCBRIDE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-00-69; CA-03-196-1)

Submitted: May 26, 2004 Decided: July 1, 2004

Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Richard McBride, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

George Richard McBride seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000). 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 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 McBride has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, although we grant McBride’s motion to expand

the record on appeal, we deny McBride’s motions for 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 the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 2 -