United States v. Oakman

85 F. App'x 900

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 16, 2004
• Docket: 03-7440
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7440

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BRIAN MAURICE OAKMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge. (CA- 03-497; CR-00-154)

Submitted: December 18, 2003 Decided: January 16, 2004

Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Maurice Oakman, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Brian Maurice Oakman seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable

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 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 Oakman 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 materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 2 -