Court Opinion

ID: 1020716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:55:35.68991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:50.699683
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 06-6988

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

CLEVELAND MCLEAN, JR.,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.     Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:90-cr-00105-HCM-TE; 2:06-cv-00081-RGD)

Submitted: October 17, 2006                 Decided: October 20, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cleveland McLean, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Cleveland McLean, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as

successive.      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

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.          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 McLean has not

made the requisite showing.       Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny

McLean’s motion to intervene, 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 -