Court Opinion

ID: 1011634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:31:19.822666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:06.932374
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-6846

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

RICHARD LEE BALDWIN,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-97-261, CA-02-691)

Submitted:   September 30, 2003           Decided:   October 8, 2003

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Lee Baldwin, Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Richard Lee Baldwin seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.          An appeal may not be taken

from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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

for claims addressed by a district court 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,             , S. Ct. 1029,

1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941

(2001).

      We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Baldwin 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