Court Opinion

ID: 1013596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:03:54.414424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:56.541727
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-6676

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

RANDY RICHARD BROOKS,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District      Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.       James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-01-37; CA-02-834-1)

Submitted:   June 24, 2004                  Decided:   July 2, 2004

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy Richard Brooks, Appellant Pro Se.    Sandra Jane Hairston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Randy Richard Brooks seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Brooks cannot

appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a

certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas

appellant meets 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,

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 Brooks 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 -