United States v. Sanders , 110 F. App'x 362 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7170
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JOE FRANKLIN SANDERS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville.    Margaret B. Seymour, District
    Judge. (CR-99-768; CA-02-2702-6-24)
    Submitted:   October 7, 2004                 Decided:   October 15, 2004
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Joe Franklin Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Joe Franklin Sanders seeks to appeal the district court’s
    orders denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000) and denying reconsideration.          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
    , 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   Sanders   has   not   made   the   requisite
    showing.    Accordingly, we deny Sanders’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: 04-7170

Citation Numbers: 110 F. App'x 362

Judges: Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Widener, Williams

Filed Date: 10/15/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023