Court Opinion

ID: 1020067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:45:27.221536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:41:09.885309
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-6607

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

ROBERT EARL WARREN, JR.,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:01-cr-100; 1:04-cv-01144-WLO)

Submitted: July 25, 2006                    Decided: August 3, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Earl Warren, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

              Robert Earl Warren, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s    orders    denying    his   motion    to   amend      and   accepting     a

magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion.           The orders are 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   Warren    has    not   made     the    requisite     showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to

proceed in formal pauperis, 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 -