United States v. Gleaton , 156 F. App'x 583 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7728
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TYRONE GLEATON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.
(CR-01-871; CA-04-1537)
Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 1, 2005
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyrone Gleaton, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Gleaton, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255(2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in
a habeas corpus 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 the district
court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 Gleaton has not made the
requisite showing.
Gleaton’s claim of error under Blakely v. Washington, 542
U.S. 296 (2004), is unavailing because neither Blakely nor United
States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005) (holding that Blakely
applies to federal sentencing guidelines), is available for post-
conviction relief for a federal prisoner whose conviction was final
before either of those cases was decided. United States v. Morris,
___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 2950 (4th Cir. Nov. 7, 2005).
- 2 -
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
- 3 -