Court Opinion

ID: 1017815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:10:37.10889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:33.737578
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7151

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

CURTIS DEAL,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR-
03-250; CA-05-756-JFM)

Submitted:   November 17, 2005         Decided:     November 29, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Deal, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Curtis Deal, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000).      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). This standard is satisfied

by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district

court’s assessment of Deal’s constitutional claims 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 Deal 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 -