Court Opinion

ID: 1026036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:59:48.413133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:40.912159
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 08-6171

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JADRAIN BRANDON SMALL,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.   Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:05-cr-00141-PMD-1; 2:07-cv-70074-PMD)

Submitted:   June 19, 2008                 Decided:   June 24, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jadrain Brandon Small, Appellant Pro Se.       Eric John Klumb,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

          Jadrain   Brandon   Small   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 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   any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.            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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).             We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Small 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 -