Court Opinion

ID: 1019607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:38:06.053398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:27:44.191468
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-6394

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JESUS RUIZ,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-03-703; CA-05-237-6)

Submitted:    May 3, 2006                   Decided:   June 5, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jesus Ruiz, Appellant Pro Se. Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr., OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Jesus Ruiz, a federal prisoner, 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 this court

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 the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).        We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Ruiz 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

                                - 2 -