United States v. Hardesty , 100 F. App'x 953 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7739
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ALVIN WAYNE HARDESTY, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
    (CR-98-299; CA-03-2246-AW)
    Submitted:   June 10, 2004                 Decided:   June 22, 2004
    Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Alvin Wayne Hardesty, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.         Odessa Palmer
    Jackson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Alvin Wayne Hardesty, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to
    appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion
    filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000), and denying his motion for
    reconsideration.    The orders are 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 Hardesty has not made the requisite
    showing.   Accordingly, we deny Hardesty’s motion for 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: 03-7739

Citation Numbers: 100 F. App'x 953

Filed Date: 6/22/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021