Court Opinion

ID: 1013347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:59:42.227271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:39.419439
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-6094

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JULIUS NATHANIEL VANN,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CR-01-212-2; CA-03-857-2)

Submitted:   May 12, 2004                   Decided:   May 25, 2004

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julius Nathaniel Vann, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Evan DePadilla,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Julius Nathaniel Vann, a federal prisoner, 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 Vann has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for appointment

of counsel, 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 -