Case ID: f-appx_135/html/0629-01.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. Travis Dwaine CORLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-8024.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 20, 2005.
    Decided June 27, 2005.
    
      Travis Dwaine Corley, Appellant pro se. Jane Barrett Taylor, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM:

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Travis Dwaine Corley seeks to appeal the district court’s orders 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 Müler-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 Corley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Corley’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny Corley’s motion to appoint counsel, 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