United States v. Stanley

66 F. App'x 515

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6501

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHNNY RAY STANLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-21, CA-00-52-5)

Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 18, 2003

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Ray Stanley, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Gerald Nazzaro, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Johnny Ray Stanley seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and

denying reconsideration. 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 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, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (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 Stanley 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