United States v. Orrelien , 80 F. App'x 820 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-6859
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ORELUS ORRELIEN, a/k/a Jerome Jean,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-98-7, CA-00-692)
    Submitted:   October 31, 2003          Decided:     November 10, 2003
    Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Orelus Orrelien, Appellant Pro Se. Michel Gordon James, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Orelus Orrelien 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 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
    ,
    , 
    123 S. Ct. 1029
    , 1040 (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 Orrelien
    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-6859

Citation Numbers: 80 F. App'x 820

Judges: Hamilton, King, Per Curiam, Williams

Filed Date: 11/10/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023