Court Opinion

ID: 1014026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:10:21.013979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:17.251668
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-6392

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JOSEPH JACKSON NOFFLETT,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.
(CR-00-372; CA-03-372-nkm)

Submitted:   July 21, 2004                 Decided:   August 13, 2004

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Jackson Nofflett, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Joseph Nofflett appeals from the dismissal of his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion to vacate his sentence.           An appeal may

not be taken to this court 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 jurists of

reason 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,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

            We have reviewed the record and conclude that Nofflett

has   not   made   the   requisite    showing.       We   therefore   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 -