Court Opinion

ID: 1015923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:41:02.359724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:29.653804
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-7558

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

BERNARD MIDDLETON,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CR-92-348-A; CA-96-1097-A)

Submitted:   January 19, 2005             Decided:   April 22, 2005

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Middleton, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Bernard Middleton, 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 both that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional     claims    is   debatable      or    wrong   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-

38 (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 Middleton 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 -