United States v. Sanderson

117 F. App'x 296

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 29, 2004
• Docket: 04-7179
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7179

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DESHAWN SANDERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CR-00-118; CA-03-275-2)

Submitted: December 17, 2004 Decided: December 29, 2004

Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deshawn Sanderson, Appellant Pro Se. Raymond Edward Patricco, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Deshawn Sanderson seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

(2000). The order is 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 Sanderson 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 -