United States v. Lewis , 139 F. App'x 570 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6398
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ELAN CHRISTOPHER LEWIS, a/k/a Jamal Xavier
Harris,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-94-94; CA-05-131-3)
Submitted: July 14, 2005 Decided: July 26, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elan Christopher Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Maguire,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Elan Christopher Lewis, a federal prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders: (1) denying relief on his
motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3582(c)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), which the district court
construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion; and
(2) denying his motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e). 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 both 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 Lewis 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
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -