Court Opinion

ID: 1013288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:58:46.160663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:36.933431
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-6398

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

PATRICK HARRINGTON,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-02-47; CA-03-50-2)

Submitted: May 13, 2004                        Decided:   May 20, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard George Brydges, BRYDGES, MAHAN, O’BRIEN & FRUCCI, Virginia
Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Patrick Harrington 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 Harrington has not made the requisite

showing.   Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We deny Harrington’s motion for appointment of

counsel.    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 -