Court Opinion

ID: 1011236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:24:08.697883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:57.253756
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 02-7897

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

MARINO JIMENEZ,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-99-113, CA-02-442-3-1)

Submitted:   July 24, 2003                 Decided:   July 29, 2003

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marino Jimenez, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Scott Broyles, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Marino Jimenez, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his motions filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).            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,                 , 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1040 (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 Jimenez 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