Court Opinion

ID: 1020071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:45:29.729205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:48:00.837495
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-7088

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

DOUGLAS ALAN JARVIS,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:91-cr-00070-JAM-1)

Submitted: July 25, 2006                    Decided: August 3, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas Alan Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se.      Laura Marie Everhart,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Douglas Alan Jarvis, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order treating his motion under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2000) as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion

and dismissing it on that basis, and a subsequent order denying

reconsideration.   The orders are 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

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.    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 Jarvis has not

made the requisite showing.   Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny Jarvis’ motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, 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 -