United States v. Snuggs

71 F. App'x 987

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CALVIN SNUGGS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-00-214, CA-02-751-1)

Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 22, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Snuggs, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Calvin Snuggs seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Snuggs cannot appeal this order unless

a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability,

and 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). An appellant meets 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, , 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Snuggs has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny Snuggs’ 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