Court Opinion

ID: 1012491
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:45:54.034344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:18.879017
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 03-7623

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

HAROLD DEAN SMITH,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-00-376; CA-02-825-1)

Submitted: January 29, 2004                 Decided:   February 9, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harold Dean Smith, Appellant Pro Se.     Clifton Thomas Barrett,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Harold Dean Smith, 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 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941

(2001).   We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Smith 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 -