Court Opinion

ID: 1018044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:14:14.196594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:44.760040
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7161

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

STEVEN EDWARD JOHN,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CR-00-
146-AMD; CA-02-2300-AMD)

Submitted: December 22, 2005              Decided:   December 30, 2005

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Edward John, Appellant Pro Se. Angela R. White, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Steven John, 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 both

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 John

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 -