United States v. Gadson , 178 F. App'x 241 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7826
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TIMOTHY GADSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
    Judge. (CR-01-84; CA-04-1372-5-22)
    Submitted:   April 7, 2006                 Decided:   April 28, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Timothy Gadson, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Timothy Gadson seeks to appeal the district court’s
    orders denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000) and his subsequent motion for reconsideration.                  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 for claims addressed by a district court 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    Gadson   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: 04-7826

Citation Numbers: 178 F. App'x 241

Judges: Hamilton, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Traxler

Filed Date: 4/28/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023