Court Opinion

ID: 1015326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:31:17.700686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:11.521220
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 04-7409

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

ERIC V. BANKS,

                                                 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (CR-02-26; CA-03-39)

Submitted:   January 7, 2005                 Decided:   January 24, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric V. Banks, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant
United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Eric V. Banks seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).                     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 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, although the district

court’s conclusion that Banks failed to sign his § 2255 motion and

supporting brief was erroneous, Banks has failed to demonstrate

that it is debatable whether he has stated valid claims of the

denial   of    a   constitutional      right.    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 -