Court Opinion

ID: 1017680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:08:50.460633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:56.650785
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-6512

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

MARK PAUL SARNO,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-99-58-WLO; CR-99-134-WLO; CR-99-135-WLO; CA-04-209-1)

Submitted:   November 17, 2005         Decided:     November 23, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Paul Sarno, Appellant Pro Se.       Paul Alexander Weinman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Lawrence Patrick Auld, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

           Mark Paul Sarno seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).      We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Sarno 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 -