Court Opinion

ID: 1015416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:32:48.830318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:14.605639
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-6068

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

ANTHONY EARL HARDRICK,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CR-02-7; CA-03-556-BO)

Submitted:   January 19, 2005          Decided:     February 10, 2005

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Earl Hardrick, Appellant Pro Se. Winnie Jordan Reaves,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Anthony   Earl    Hardrick      seeks   to   appeal        the    district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000).      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   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 Hardrick 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 -