Case ID: f-appx_62/html/0540-01.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. Dean Anthony BECKFORD, a/k/a Milo, a/k/a Daniel Davis, a/k/a Smiley, a/k/a Smiles, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-6091.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2003.
    Decided May 1, 2003.
    Dean Anthony Beckford, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    
      Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Dean Anthony Beckford seeks to appeal the district court’s order and order on reconsideration denying relief his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This Court may only grant a certificate of appealability if the appellant makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). The relevant inquiry is whether “‘reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.’” See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Beckford 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.