United States v. Vann , 96 F. App'x 933 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-6094
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JULIUS NATHANIEL VANN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
    Judge. (CR-01-212-2; CA-03-857-2)
    Submitted:   May 12, 2004                   Decided:   May 25, 2004
    Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Julius Nathaniel Vann, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Evan DePadilla,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Julius Nathaniel Vann, a federal prisoner, seeks to
    appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion
    filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000).          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 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 Vann has not made the
    requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for appointment
    of counsel, 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: 04-6094

Citation Numbers: 96 F. App'x 933

Judges: Hamilton, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 5/25/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023