Court Opinion

ID: 1027024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:16:09.372328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:29.408491
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 08-6777

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff – Appellee,

             v.

DOMINICKE ANTOINE TRIGGS,

                  Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:03-cr-00413-CMH-2; 1:07-cv-01055-CMH)

Submitted:    October 21, 2008              Decided:   October 27, 2008

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dominicke Antoine Triggs, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia Marie
Haynes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

              Dominicke       Antoine       Triggs     seeks      to    appeal       from     the

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

(2000) motion, and denying his motion for reconsideration of

that order.           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     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 Triggs 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