Case ID: f-appx_63/html/0745-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Jefferson PRICE, III, a/k/a Thomas Price, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-6397.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2003.
    Decided May 27, 2003.
    Thomas Jefferson Price, III, Appellant Pro Se. David Paul Folmar, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    
      Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Jefferson Price, III appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his civil complaint as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We conclude Price cannot establish a basis for appellate relief. Price cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (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). Price must demonstrate reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable, and that the district court’s dispositive procedural rulings are debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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.), cert denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Price has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility 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.