Court Opinion

ID: 1016594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:51:58.595053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:13.049463
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 05-6217

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

ADAM NICKLOUS CARR,

                                           Defendant -   Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-01-126; CA-04-187-1)

Submitted:   July 14, 2005                 Decided:   July 22, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adam Nicklous Carr, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Cannon, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Adam Nicklous Carr 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, 336-38 (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 Carr has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.     We also deny Carr’s pending motions for “disclosure of

grand jury minutes” and for an “extraordindary writ” under Fed. R.

App. P. 21(c).     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 -