Court Opinion

ID: 1012550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:46:48.703844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:10.464204
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-7436

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

VASSEL MCFADDEN,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CR-01-176; CA-03-302)

Submitted:   January 30, 2004          Decided:     February 19, 2004

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vassel McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant
United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Vassel McFadden seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.       McFadden cannot

appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a

certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas

appellant meets 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. 2001).        We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that McFadden 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 -