United States v. Jarvis , 155 F. App'x 726 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6904
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DOUGLAS ALAN JARVIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (CR-91-70-N)
    Submitted:   October 14, 2005             Decided:   December 1, 2005
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Douglas Alan Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se.      Laura Marie Everhart,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Douglas Alan Jarvis seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order dismissing his motion for modification of sentence, which the
    district court construed as a successive 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000)
    motion and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and a subsequent
    order denying his motion for reconsideration.        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    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 Jarvis 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: 05-6904

Citation Numbers: 155 F. App'x 726

Judges: Luttig, Per Curiam, Shedd, Williams

Filed Date: 12/1/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023