Court Opinion

ID: 1018285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:18:00.940314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:35.863604
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 05-7281

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

CLEVELAND MCLEAN, JR.,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-90-105)

Submitted: January 19, 2006                 Decided:   January 25, 2006

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cleveland McLean, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Cleveland McLean, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus

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 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).      Our review of the record discloses that

McLean has failed to satisfy these requirements.          Accordingly, we

grant his motions to supplement, deny his motion for 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 -