United States v. Steplight

105 F. App'x 526

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6242

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DWAYNE STEPLIGHT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-01-264; CA-03-33-AM)

Submitted: August 9, 2004 Decided: September 8, 2004

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwayne Steplight, Appellant Pro Se. LeDora Knight, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Dwayne Steplight appeals a district court’s order

construing his “motion to vacate plea of guilty and evidentiary

hearing” as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it as

successive, noting that Steplight has not obtained authorization

from this court to file such a motion. 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, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (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 Steplight has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Steplight’s motion for

appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with

* See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 367-70 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that order denying relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) in a habeas setting is “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding” subject to the certificate of appealability requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2000)).

- 2 - 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

- 3 -