Court Opinion

ID: 1019107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:30:50.088257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:03.354517
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-7826

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

TIMOTHY GADSON,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-01-84; CA-04-1372-5-22)

Submitted:   April 7, 2006                 Decided:   April 28, 2006

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Gadson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

           Timothy Gadson seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) and his subsequent motion for reconsideration.                  An appeal

may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 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    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    Gadson   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 -