United States v. Addison , 156 F. App'x 593 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6202
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANDRE ALBERT ADDISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (CR-98-210; CA-04-1205-WMN)
Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 2, 2005
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andre Albert Addison, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Andre Albert Addison 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 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 Addison 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 -