Court Opinion

ID: 1019297
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:33:30.449265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:35.902745
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 05-7642

CLEVELAND DARNELL COPELAND,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
04-3319; CR-00-424)

Submitted:   April 14, 2006                 Decided:   May 10, 2006

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cleveland Darnell Copeland, Appellant Pro Se.   Mythili Raman,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Cleveland Darnell Copeland seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his

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

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 both

that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims

is 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

Copeland 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 -