Court Opinion

ID: 1020828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:57:06.227032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:28.041421
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 06-7119

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

EDWARD ANTONIO ROSE,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(1:04-cr-00267-WDQ; 1:05-cv-03017-WDQ)

Submitted: October 17, 2006                 Decided: October 23, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Antonio Rose, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew George Warrens
Norman, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Edward Antonio Rose seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.              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 the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).             We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Rose 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 -