Court Opinion

ID: 1019667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:39:19.182799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:28.868262
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 05-6584

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

DARTY JAMES REED,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR-
97-448; CA-00-3026)

Submitted:   June 9, 2006                   Decided:   June 22, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darty James Reed, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Matthew Schenning,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, Daphene
Rose McFerren, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Darty James Reed, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion, denying reconsideration of that order, and denying

his motion to amend.          The orders are 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 his constitutional claims by the

district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive

procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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   Reed    has   not     made   the    requisite     showing.

Accordingly, we deny 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 -