Court Opinion

ID: 1018543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:21:59.491988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:17.350554
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7572

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

RONALD JOSEPH HAMILTON,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(CR-99-216-BEL; CA-02-313)

Submitted: February 16, 2006              Decided: February 22, 2006

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Joseph Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se. James McCormick Webster,
III, KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD & EVANS, P.L.L.C., Washington,
D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Ronald Joseph Hamilton 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 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 Hamilton 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 -