Court Opinion

ID: 1020072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:45:30.389013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:34.576213
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-6639

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

GEORGE HARRIS,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (2:88-cr-00076-JCC-1)

Submitted: July 25, 2006                    Decided: August 3, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Harris, Appellant Pro Se.      Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Charles Dee
Griffith, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          George Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s order

treating his Application for Writ of Audita Querala as a successive

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying relief on that basis.

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 Harris 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 -