Court Opinion

ID: 1014359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:15:39.228488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:42.781465
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-7112

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

ALAN VINCENT CHAPMAN,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.   William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (CR-96-458; CA-03-834-WMN)

Submitted:   September 16, 2004       Decided:   September 24, 2004

Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alan Vincent Chapman, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Robert
Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorneys, Lynne Ann
Battaglia, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Alan Vincent Chapman 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   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 (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   Chapman    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 -