Smith v. United States , 99 F. App'x 486 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7147
HAROLD SMITH, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 03-7608
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HAROLD SMITH, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-2456-13AK; CA-02-2456)
Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: June 3, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
No. 03-7147, dismissed; No. 03-7608, affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Harold Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William Corley Lucius,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Harold Smith, Jr., appeals
the district court’s orders denying his motion for a certificate of
appealability (No. 03-7147) and his motion for a copy of records at
the government’s expense (No. 03-7608). As to No. 03-7147, 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 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, 336-38 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude
Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, in No. 03-
7147, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. As to No. 03-7608, we have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, in No. 03-7608, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v. United States,
No. CA-02-2456 (D.S.C. Sept. 3, 2003). While we grant Smith leave
to proceed in forma pauperis in No. 03-7608, we deny his motions
for appointment of counsel and for abeyance in No. 03-7147. We
also deny his motion to stay these appeals, his motion for
injunctive relief, and his motion to consolidate these appeals with
- 3 -
two other cases. 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.
No. 03-7147, DISMISSED
No. 03-7608, AFFIRMED
- 4 -