Court Opinion

ID: 8599689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-23 20:58:46.889077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:08.798226
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Joseph Michael Dixon seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his motion to dismiss the indictment. The district court properly construed Dixon’s pleading as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissed it as successive, noting that Dixon had not obtained authorization from this court to file such a 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 ap-pealability 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, 338, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 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 Dixon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Dixon’s motion for a certificate of appealability and . ,, . ,T7 .. ... , 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