Court Opinion

ID: 1026459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:06:54.771587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:04.598056
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                 No. 08-6668

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JAMES M. DEBARDELEBEN,

                  Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.     Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:08-cv-00064-FDW; 3:83-cr-00050-FDW-1)

Submitted:     August 14, 2008                 Decided:   August 21, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James M. DeBardeleben, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            James       M.    DeBardeleben      seeks   to    appeal   the    district

court’s order dismissing as successive 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 DeBardeleben

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