Osborne v. United States , 136 F. App'x 588 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6262
    AJAMU SAWANDI OSBORNE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.   James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-04-890)
    Submitted:   June 23, 2005                 Decided:   June 29, 2005
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ajamu Sawandi Osborne, Appellant Pro Se.       N. George Metcalf,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Ajamu    Sawandi    Osborne      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   Osborne    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-6262

Citation Numbers: 136 F. App'x 588

Judges: Michael, Per Curiam, Traxler, Widener

Filed Date: 6/29/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023