Court Opinion

ID: 1019038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:29:30.542043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:27.121346
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-6031

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

FREEMAN LEE ROGERS, JR.,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
Chief District Judge. (CR-00-137; CA-05-106-3)

Submitted: March 30, 2006                   Decided: April 10, 2006

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Freeman Lee Rogers, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

             Freeman Lee Rogers, Jr., a federal prisoner, 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 the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional     claims    is    debatable      or    wrong    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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).              We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Rogers 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 -