Court Opinion

ID: 1017279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:02:29.576294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:04.686087
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-8001

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

GREGORY BENJAMIN,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.
(CR-01-62-JFM; CA-04-2799-JFM)

Submitted:   September 19, 2005            Decided:   October 5, 2005

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Benjamin, Appellant Pro Se. Kwame Jangha Manley, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Gregory Benjamin seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.        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 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).      We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Benjamin 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 -