Court Opinion

ID: 8599120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-23 20:31:33.384968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:07.693732
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
James Lynn Lynch seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and his motion for downward departure. The order and judgment 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lynch has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, as for Lynch’s appeal from that part of the order denying his § 2255 motion, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We affirm that part of the order denying his motion for a downward departure. We grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.