Court Opinion

ID: 1019372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:34:36.429462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:22:21.244359
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7824

CHARLES NATHANIEL DAWSON,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-05-1749-DCN; CR-02-1305)

Submitted:   May 1, 2006                    Decided:   May 17, 2006

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Nathaniel Dawson, Appellant Pro Se. John Charles Duane,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Charles Nathaniel Dawson, a federal prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion.      The order is not appealable unless this

court   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

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

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 Dawson

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 -