Court Opinion

ID: 1017543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:06:28.605526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:51:20.481678
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 05-6910

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

ISIAH LAND,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CR-01-197; CA-04-662)

Submitted:    October 19, 2005             Decided:   November 2, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isiah Land, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Isiah Land, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000).      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). This standard is satisfied

by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district

court’s assessment of Land’s constitutional claims 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 Land 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 -