Court Opinion

ID: 1019506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:36:41.746371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:19.552358
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 05-7783

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

TERRENCE COLEMAN,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.    Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CR-01-506-JFA; CA-05-2133-JFA)

Submitted:   April 26, 2006                  Decided:   June 2, 2006

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrence Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Terrence Coleman seeks to appeal the district court's

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000), and his motion to alter or amend judgement under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(e).      The orders are 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

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See

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   Coleman   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 -