Court Opinion

ID: 1013091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:55:25.263454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:14.096154
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 04-6268

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

LONNIE ALONZA SAMUELS,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.   C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (CR-00-599-4; CA-03-772-4-12)

Submitted:   April 15, 2004                 Decided:   April 23, 2004

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lonnie Alonza Samuels, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Lonnie   Alonza    Samuels      seeks   to   appeal   the    district

court’s judgment dismissing 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    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 that the Samuels 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 -