United States v. Smalls

120 F. App'x 516
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 15, 2005
Docket04-7555
StatusUnpublished

This text of 120 F. App'x 516 (United States v. Smalls) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Smalls, 120 F. App'x 516 (4th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mitchell Smalls seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his motion for reconsideration of his sentence as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it as successive. 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)(A) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a *517 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smalls has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Smalls’ motion 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Rose v. Lee
252 F.3d 676 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 F. App'x 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-smalls-ca4-2005.