Case ID: f-appx_317/html/0322-01.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. Jermaine Jerrell SIMS, a/k/a Justice, a/k/a Jus, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-7164.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 13, 2008.
    Decided: Nov. 20, 2008.
    Jermaine Jerrell Sims, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Stephan Altimari, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Kenneth E. Melson, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jermaine Jerrell Sims seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his Motion for Independent Action for Relief from Judgment. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealabihty. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealabihty 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sims has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabihty 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.