Court Opinion

ID: 1018438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:20:15.393568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:32.919128
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7113

PAUL ANDREW STOKES, JR.,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-296)

Submitted:   January 25, 2006             Decided:   February 9, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Andrew Stokes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Paul Andrew Stokes, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on the claim in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion that counsel denied him the right to testify in his

defense at trial.       We previously remanded this claim to the

district court for an evidentiary hearing.    The district court has

since held a hearing, denied relief on this claim, and entered an

order to that effect.   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

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stokes

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 -