Court Opinion

ID: 1018985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:28:37.818064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:56.083159
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-6974

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

WILLIAM KEITH PATTERSON,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-96-154-MU; CA-01-278)

Submitted:   December 21, 2005             Decided:   April 3, 2006

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Keith Patterson, Appellant Pro Se.    Amy Elizabeth Ray,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          William Keith Patterson 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 § 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 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 Patterson has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny Patterson’s motion for 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 -