Court Opinion

ID: 1019708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:39:45.907785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:30:11.397383
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7519

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

MELVIN ADAMS,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-93-102; CA-05-383)

Submitted:   June 7, 2006                  Decided:   June 20, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melvin Adams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Melvin Adams seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.               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     any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the   district   court    is   likewise   debatable.         See    Miller-El    v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Adams

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 -