Case ID: f-appx_124/html/0187-01.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. Clinton GREEN, a/k/a Blue, Defendant — Appellant.
    No. 04-6146.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 4, 2005.
    Decided: March 22, 2005.
    Clinton Green, Appellant pro se.
    Monica Kaminski Schwartz, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Clinton Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) challenging the revocation of his supervised release. The order is not appealable 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, 336-38, 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 Green has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Green’s motions to amend, for default judgment, for writ of mandamus, for general relief, and for entry of Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) judgment, and we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately , . . , , . , , „ ,, J presented m the materials before the court r , .. ., , . and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED