Court Opinion

ID: 1012842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:51:28.468607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:17.479527
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 03-7693

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

WILLIAM W. KINKELLA, a/k/a Funk,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-02-14; CA-02-159)

Submitted:   March 10, 2004                 Decided:   March 26, 2004

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William W. Kinkella, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. McWilliams, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            William W. Kinkella appeals the district court’s denial

of his motion 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 his

constitutional     claims   are   debatable   and   that    any     dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong.    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   Kinkella   has    not    satisfied      either    standard.

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 -