United States v. McGrier

102 F. App'x 831

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7373

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TERRYONTO MCGRIER, a/k/a Rodney Jones,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, District Judge. (CR-93-196; CA-02-33-2)

Submitted: June 23, 2004 Decided: July 27, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terryonto McGrier, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Terryonto McGrier seeks to appeal the district court’s

order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying

relief in McGrier’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. That motion

alleged the Government fraudulently filed a response to McGrier’s

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion resulting in the denial of McGrier’s

claims. 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 is required to appeal the district

court’s order denying McGrier’s post-judgment motion. See Reid v.

Angelone, F.3d , 2004 WL 1119646, at *4 (4th Cir. May 19,

2004)(No. 03-6146). 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 McGrier has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

- 2 - facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -