Court Opinion

ID: 1014059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:10:42.766009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:29.846180
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-6308

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JAMES M. DEBARDELEBEN,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-83-50; CA-03-469-1-MU)

Submitted:   July 14, 2004                 Decided:   August 10, 2004

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James M. DeBardeleben, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             James   M.   DeBardeleben    seeks     to    appeal   the   district

court’s order dismissing as successive his motion to vacate, set

aside, or correct sentence 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 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,

338 (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 DeBardeleben 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 -