Court Opinion

ID: 1017453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:05:12.662131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:54.172924
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 05-6893

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

MICHAEL A. CLARK,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CR-00-244; CA-03-912)

Submitted:   October 20, 2005              Decided:   October 28, 2005

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Childs Ackley, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Michael A. Clark seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). 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 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 Clark has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny his 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 -