United States v. Chestnut , 142 F. App'x 751 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6168
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    LARRY CHESTNUT,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.   C. Weston Houck, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-03-2821; CR-02-272)
    Submitted:   August 25, 2005                 Decided:   August 31, 2005
    Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Larry Chestnut, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
    Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Larry Chestnut 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 Chestnut 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: 05-6168

Citation Numbers: 142 F. App'x 751

Judges: Hamilton, Per Curiam, Shedd, Traxler

Filed Date: 8/31/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023