Court Opinion

ID: 1015633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:36:16.657546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:21.059197
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-7589

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

CHARLES ROBERT BAREFOOT, JR.,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (CR-02-219; CA-04-311)

Submitted:   February 24, 2005             Decided:    March 9, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Charles   Robert   Barefoot,   Jr.,   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 Barefoot has not made the requisite

showing.    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal.     We deny Barefoot’s motion for 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