Court Opinion

ID: 1012244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:42:02.212443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:37.060894
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-7440

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

BRIAN MAURICE OAKMAN,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge. (CA-
03-497; CR-00-154)

Submitted:   December 18, 2003            Decided:   January 16, 2004

Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Maurice Oakman, Appellant Pro Se.      Stacey Denise Haynes,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Brian Maurice Oakman seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).          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 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 Oakman 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 -