Court Opinion

ID: 1014681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:20:48.651737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:15.887769
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 04-6610

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

WILLIAM JACKIE PEARSON,

                                                 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.  Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CR-98-15; CA-03-216-1)

Submitted:   August 20, 2004                 Decided:   November 3, 2004

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Jackie Pearson, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               William Jackie Pearson, a federal prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).               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 appealability will not issue

for claims addressed by a district court 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 both 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 (4th Cir. 2001).              We have independently reviewed the

record   and     conclude     that   Pearson    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 -