Court Opinion

ID: 1012738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:49:46.129468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:36.871516
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-7297

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

TYRONE DARNELL BUTLER,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-01-272, CA-03-996-AW; CA-03-1077-AW)

Submitted:   February 23, 2004            Decided:   March 10, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone Darnell Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Gina Laurie Simms, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Tyrone   Darnell     Butler   seeks     to   appeal        the    district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000).    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a § 2255 proceeding 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 Butler 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 -