Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06805/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06805-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jamel Rasheed Harris
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6805

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMEL RASHEED HARRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (4:04-cr-00009-JLK-MFU-1; 4:07-cv-80013-JLK-MFU)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 21, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamel Rasheed Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Albert Lustig,

Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6805 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/21/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Jamel Rasheed Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harris 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

Appeal: 08-6805 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/21/2008 Pg: 2 of 2