Court Opinion

ID: 1018717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:24:27.733429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:40.864873
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7714

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

TONY S. HARRIS,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CR-97-32; CA-05-454)

Submitted: February 23, 2006                    Decided: March 6, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony S. Harris, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Tony S. Harris, a federal prisoner, 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 post-conviction 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).                  We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Harris has not made the

requisite showing.       Accordingly, we deny Harris’s motion to stay

the district court order, 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 -