Court Opinion

ID: 1015097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:27:21.442064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:05.490240
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-6554

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

ERNEST ALEXANDER ANDERSON,

                                                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CR-00-31; CA-02-851-7)

Submitted:   December 16, 2004             Decided:   December 20, 2004

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ernest Alexander Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.    Bruce A. Pagel,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Ernest Alexander Anderson, a federal prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).          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 Anderson has not made the

requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Anderson’s motion for 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 -