Court Opinion

ID: 1019597
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:37:59.180327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:27:41.958658
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7984

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JOSEPH PHOENIX, a/k/a Kenny,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.   Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CR-03-162; CA-05-1138)

Submitted:   May 22, 2006                   Decided:   June 6, 2006

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Phoenix, Appellant Pro Se.       Robert Hayden Bickerton,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Joseph Phoenix 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, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).         We have independently reviewed the

record    and   conclude    that   Phoenix   has   not   made    the    requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

Phoenix’s motion to appoint counsel, 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 -