Court Opinion

ID: 1019130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:31:05.677609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:02.443197
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-6339

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

CHAD WILLIAM CARLTON,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.    Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:98cr340; 1:99cr14; 1:06cv15)

Submitted: April 20, 2006                   Decided: April 26, 2006

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chad William Carlton, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

               Chad William Carlton, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)

motion as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.                   28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir.

2004).     A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims

addressed by a district court 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 both that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional       claims     is   debatable     or     wrong    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 Carlton 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 -