Court Opinion

ID: 1019332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:34:10.010967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:06:20.802150
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 05-6985

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

ROBERT LESTER KIRBY, JR.,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (CR-02-111-BR; CA-04-225-BR)

Submitted:   April 26, 2006                 Decided:   May 19, 2006

Before LUTTIG,* WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lester Kirby, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.     Steve R. Matheny,
Kimberly Ann Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     *
      Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not
participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of
the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
PER CURIAM:

           Robert Lester Kirby, Jr. seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying 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 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 (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 Kirby 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 -