Court Opinion

ID: 1013415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:00:44.693721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:44.160091
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-7762

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

CLARK PROCTOR, JR.,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.  Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CR-00-6; CA-03-105-1)

Submitted:   May 19, 2004                   Decided:   June 1, 2004

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clark Proctor, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Clark Proctor, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order summarily denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000).           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, 336-38 (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   Proctor   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 -