United States v. Smalls , 203 F. App'x 525 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6807
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MITCHELL SMALLS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:96-cr-00131-RBS-2; 2:98-cv-01294-RBS)
Submitted: October 17, 2006 Decided: October 19, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mitchell Smalls, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mitchell Smalls seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The
order is 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 any
assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Smalls has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Smalls’ notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
(4th Cir. 2003). However, because Smalls’ claims do not satisfy
the statutory requirements for obtaining authorization, we deny his
application. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
- 2 -
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -