Court Opinion

ID: 1017976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:12:56.124616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:44.433387
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-6936

ROY CAMPBELL,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.   C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-1402)

Submitted:   November 23, 2005         Decided:     December 12, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Roy Campbell seeks to appeal the district court’s order

granting summary judgment on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) petition.

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 for claims

addressed by a district court 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 Campbell has not made the

requisite showing.   Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, 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 -