Court Opinion

ID: 1011937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:36:23.282412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:03.531020
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-7145

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

RALPH H. FALLS,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.  Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CR-01-49, CA-03-127-3)

Submitted:   November 6, 2003          Decided:     November 18, 2003

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ralph H. Falls, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Michel Smith, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Ralph H. Falls seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).                An

appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding

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 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,

  , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (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 Falls has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Falls’ motion

for 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