Court Opinion

ID: 1015173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:28:43.057849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:08.194080
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-7090

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

SCOTTIE BALLARD,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.   C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (CR-01-229; CA-02-2105-3)

Submitted:   December 15, 2004            Decided:   January 5, 2005

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scottie Ballard, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Scottie Ballard seeks to appeal the district court’s

order 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 (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   Ballard   has     not   made   the   requisite    showing.

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny

Ballard’s motion for 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 -