Court Opinion

ID: 1011994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:37:35.152981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:55.340954
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-7403

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

KEITH G. MARTIN,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.   Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CR-97-943, CA-02-3360-2)

Submitted:   November 19, 2003            Decided:   December 5, 2003

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith G. Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Miller Williams Shealy, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Keith G. Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Martin cannot

appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a

certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas

appellant meets 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 Martin 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