Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Lee BEATTY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-05
Citations: 103 F. App'x 785
Docket Number: No. 04-6648
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Lee BEATTY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 785–785

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Lee BEATTY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6648.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 29, 2004.
Decided: Aug. 5, 2004.
Gary Lee Beatty, Appellant pro se.
Paul Joseph McNulty, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gary Lee Beatty seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 Miller-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 Beatty has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Beatty's motion for an enlargement of time to amend his § 2255 motion to raise a claim under Blakely v. Washington, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403, 2004 WL 1402697 (2004), because Blakely does not apply in the § 2255 context. See generally Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 311, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989); United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 148 (4th Cir.2001). 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