United States v. Hardrick , 120 F. App'x 994 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED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    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-6068

Citation Numbers: 120 F. App'x 994

Judges: Luttig, Per Curiam, Shedd, Traxler

Filed Date: 2/10/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023