Court Opinion

ID: 1019059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:30:00.741166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:33.314092
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 05-7705

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

ANTHONY GRANDISON, JR.,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR-
02-368-JFM; CA-05-870-JFM)

Submitted:   March 27, 2006                 Decided:   April 21, 2006

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Grandison, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio,
United States Attorney, John Francis Purcell, Jr., OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Anthony Grandison, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion

and denying his motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 59(e), 60(b).      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

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the   district    court   is   likewise   debatable.      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 (4th Cir. 2001).

We    have   independently     reviewed   the   record   and    conclude   that

Grandison 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 -