Court Opinion

ID: 1020587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:53:39.598515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:35.767030
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-6033

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

EMMETTE JEROME KELLEY,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.   Raymond A. Jackson,
District Judge. (CR-99-20; CA-00-137-4)

Submitted: September 28, 2006              Decided: October 5, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmette Jerome Kelley, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham,
II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Emmette    Jerome   Kelley     seeks   to    appeal   the      district

court’s    order   denying   his   Fed.    R.   Civ.     P.   59(e)   motion     to

reconsider its denial of relief on Kelley’s 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 Kelley has not

made the requisite showing.        Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Kelley’s motions for

appointment of counsel and for 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 -