Court Opinion

ID: 1018022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:13:42.979429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:06.437521
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 05-6296

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JOSEPH TITO GRIN,

                                              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-98-257; CA-04-376-JAB)

Submitted: December 15, 2005               Decided: December 20, 2005

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Tito Grin, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Joseph Tito Grin seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny 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   both     that   the   district    court’s    assessment      of   his

constitutional      claims      is    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 Grin has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,      we     deny    Grin’s    motion    for     a    certificate         of

appealability, deny Grin’s motion to appoint counsel 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