United States v. Parker , 174 F. App'x 755 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7375
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RICKY PARKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-98-35; CA-05-548)
Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 6, 2006
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ricky Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ricky Parker seeks to appeal the district court's order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing
Parker's motion for “a recommendation in support of his request for
a certificate of appealability.” The court construed this motion
as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and concluded
that it lacked jurisdiction to consider it. Parker also appeals
from the district court's order denying his subsequent motion to
amend filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
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
the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Parker
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
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -