United States v. McGraw , 145 F. App'x 423 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6711
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ARTIS SANGRIA MCGRAW,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CR-
    02-239-MBS; CA-04-22112-HFF)
    Submitted:   September 29, 2005           Decided:   October 7, 2005
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Artis Sangria McGraw, Appellant Pro Se.       Alan Lance Crick,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Artis Sangria McGraw, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
    the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) as duplicative of another § 2255 motion
    that is ongoing in the district court.         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 both that
    reasonable jurists would find 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 McGraw 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: 05-6711

Citation Numbers: 145 F. App'x 423

Filed Date: 10/7/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014