Court Opinion

ID: 1012415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:44:47.504365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:07.175280
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-7336

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

STEVEN MAURICE LANE,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern.  James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-97-5-FO; CA-03-123-4)

Submitted: December 19, 2003              Decided:   February 3, 2004

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Maurice Lane, Appellant Pro Se. Cynthia Elaine Tompkins,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Steven Maurice Lane 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       Lane   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 -