Court Opinion

ID: 1026095
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:00:44.593921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:44.807955
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 08-6354

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

RICHARD RAYORDO HARRIS,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:04-cr-00387-RDB-1; 1:06-cv-02399-RDB)

Submitted:   June 26, 2008                  Decided:   July 2, 2008

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Rayordo Harris, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Richard Rayordo Harris seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion

and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.          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 Harris 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 -