United States v. Osborne , 203 F. App'x 465 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6959
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    VINCENT G. OSBORNE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
    (1:97-cr-00075-WDQ; 1:06-cv-01029-WDQ)
    Submitted: October 17, 2006                 Decided: October 20, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Vincent G. Osborne, Appellant Pro Se. Tarra R. DeShields-Minnis,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Vincent G. Osborne seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion as successive.
    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 Osborne 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: 06-6959

Citation Numbers: 203 F. App'x 465

Judges: Duncan, King, Niemeyer, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 10/20/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023